Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Chilean Government since February with regard to the failure to fulfil obligations with regard to the sinking fund and interest payments due to British holders of Chilean Government loans which were floated in London and based on sterling; and what representations, if any, he has received in the matter from the Council of Foreign Bondholders during the same period?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will intimate to the Chilean Ambassador in London that the default of the Chilean Government on its obligations to British investors who have lent their savings to Chile has inflicted hardship upon them, and that a proposal from the Chilean Government by which a scheme may be set up to terminate the default is overdue?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Nothing further has occurred since the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on 23rd November last, to justify the belief that representations would at present serve any useful purpose. With regard to the second part of the question put by my hon. Friend, the Member for East Dorset, I understand that the Council of Foreign Bondholders have been in continuous communication with the competent Chilean authorities from the earliest possible moment, and have under immediate con-
sideration the formation of a special committee to represent the interests of British holders of Chilean bonds. They, have not as yet made any request for the assistance of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why is it that there is no outcry in this country against the Chilean Government for not meeting their obligations to people who have invested their money there, the same as there is against Russia?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think the hon. Member will find the cases parallel at all.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is this not the first time in history that Chile has ever defaulted?

Mr. EDEN: That is so.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government acquiesced in the flotation of the Greek 7 per cent. refugee loan, issued under the auspices of the League of Nations; and if he will ascertain from the League of Nations whether the contract to pay interest and sinking fund, under which British subscriptions to the fund were obtained, is being observed.

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him on Monday last.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does that mean that, when the League of Nations backs up a loan, the public cannot rely upon their word, and it is valueless?

Mr. EDEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the answer of Monday, he will see exactly what it means.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Chinese salt revenue has exceeded previous totals in the past financial year; and whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government with a view to accelerating the liquidation of arrears of dividends on salt-secured foreign loans, in view of the; fact that such liquidation has recently fallen short of the suggested programme?

Mr. EDEN: I have not received the official statistics for the past financial year, but, so far as my information goes, if liquidation has fallen short of the suggested programme, it has done so only slightly. Such representations as may be necessary or desirable will be made by His Majesty's Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether, in order to reduce expenditure, he will take steps to convert some of the posts now held by Consul-Generals into Consulates, and, similarly, certain Consulates into Vice-Consulates, temporarily if not permanently?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Rigid economy is constantly observed in the administration of the Consular Services and the status of posts throughout the world in relation to their importance and the nature of the duties to fee performed is continually under review. Reductions in status cannot, however, be made arbitrarily without impairing the efficiency of the Service. Compulsory cuts have been made in the emoluments of all Senior Consular Officers, and a large number have voluntarily offered to forego portions of their allowances. I welcome this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the admirable spirit displayed throughout the Service in furthering the cause of national economy.

Sir C. CAYZER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what would be the aggregate total savings if the Embassies at Warsaw and Lisbon were reconstituted as Legations when the posts next fall vacant?

Mr. EDEN: The total increased cost of the creation of Embassies at Warsaw and Lisbon together was £2,050. In view, however, of reductions that have recently been made in emoluments—which reductions at these two posts alone total over £1,000—the saving resulting from a reversion to the previous status of these posts would now be considerably less than the original extra cost.

Sir C. CAYZER: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the volume of
diplomatic business passing between these two countries requires the expenditure entailed by having these Embassies?

Mr. EDEN: It is all a question of proportion. We have already saved £1,000 on these two posts and, even by reducing them to a lower status, which we could only do by agreement of the countries concerned, we should certainly not save more than another £l,000, probably considerably less.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the attitude of the Japanese Government towards the application of the Nine Power Treaties to the Manchurian question?

Mr. EDEN: The Japanese Government have declared that Japan is fully prepared to stand by her obligations under the Nine-Power Treaty. So far as I am aware, the Japanese Government regard the Treaty as applicable to Manchuria, but maintain that the treaties which relate to China must necessarily be applied with due regard to the state of affairs from time to time prevailing in that country.

Mr. MANDER: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the speech by the Japanese War Minister saying that Japan would have nothing to do with the Nine-Power Treaty concerning Manchuria?

Mr. EDEN: I have not seen the speech.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries on the subject? It is a very important speech.

Mr. MANDER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegate to the Assembly is giving support to the carrying out of the resolution of the Special Assembly of the League of Nations on, 11th March that the withdrawal of Japanese troops from Shanghai shall take place without political conditions?

Mr. EDEN: The United Kingdom delegate is, of course, supporting the execution of a resolution in whose adoption he played so prominent a part.

Mr. MANDER: Then the statements in the Press that the Foreign Minister has been supporting the Japanese point of view are entirely untrue?

Mr. EDEN: I have no responsibility for statements in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many applications have been made to his Department within the last 12 months for Navy co-operation in the production of British films; and what reply was given in each case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): Apart from news films, for which numerous facilities have been given, one film, depicting escape from a submarine was made with Admiralty co-operation during the past 12 months. One or two other applications have been received, but are still under consideration.

WELFARE CONFERENCES.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the introduction of grade requests in the Naval Welfare Conferences, as well as general and class requests, in order that requests affecting chief petty officers only or other grades might be represented for the consideration of the Admiralty?

Lord STANLEY: The Admiralty have no reason for thinking that the present practice, under which requests affecting the whole of a grade in the Service can be put forward as general requests, does not meet requirements.

Rear-Admiral CAMPBELL: Will the Noble Lord consider the abolition of the Naval Warfare Committee altogether and return to the pre-War condition of encouraging officers and men of all grades to put their requests through the commanding officers as being in the best interests of naval discipline?

Lord STANLEY: I do not think that arises out of this question. We always wish to see requests put forward through the usual Service channels.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Would any saving be effected financially by the abolition of this committee?

Lord STANLEY: I should require notice of that question.

PORT EDGAR (SALE).

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to advertise the projected sale of Port Edgar, situated near. South Queensferry, and the adjoining property of Butlaw belonging to the Admiralty?

Lord STANLEY: We advertised the properties in the special Industrial Supplement issued by the "Estates Gazette" dated 14th November, 1931, and the West Lothian County Council have included particulars in their brochure of the county. Prior to this, the Port Edgar property was widely advertised when it was exposed to Public Roup in December, 1929.

Sir A. BAILLIE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any applications for the purchase of the establishment of Port Edgar, situated near South Queensferry, and the adjoining property of Butlaw; whether any such applications have been refused; and, if so, upon what grounds?

Lord STANLEY: Tentative applications have been received and negotiations have extended over a considerable period but have not yet matured. No application has been refused.

Sir A. BAILLIE: Is the First Lord satisfied that the terms and conditions of sale in regard to these properties are not prohibitive and, if he is not so satisfied, in view of the fact that their values are rapidly decreasing, will he be prepared to modify the terms and conditions of sale?

Lord STANLEY: I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the Civil Lord.

AIR SERVICES (EAST AFRICA).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the number of people anxious to travel home by air from the Colonies, including civil servants, is larger
than the existing Imperial service can convey; and whether, in these circumstances, assistance is being given by the local Governments concerned to the promotion of increased facilities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have received no representations that the existing air service to and from East Africa is inadequate. It is not proposed to ask the East African Governments to increase the generous contributions which they already make to the subsidy. The provision of extra machines to meet increased traffic is a matter for the company.

Mr. L. SMITH: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the benefit to the Colonies of an airmail service to and from Great Britain, he can state the extent to which the Colonies are co-operating with Imperial Airways in the provision of aerodromes and wireless services?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The extent to which the East African Governments have co-operated in the preliminary organisation of the air route to the Cape was indicated in the reply which I gave on the 2nd March to my hon. Friend the Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Mr. Brocklebank). In addition, those Governments have undertaken to provide subsidies up to a maximum of £37,000 per annum to assist in the operation of the air service during the first five years

LOCUSTS.

Captain P. MAC DONALD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent, as a result of the recent recognition of the Imperial Institute of Entomology in London as the international centre for the collection of data on the movements of locust swarms, it has been found possible to expedite work in this connection; and how many foreign Governments are co-operating in the work at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-USTER: The foreign Governments so far co-operating in the investigation into the breeding of locusts are those of France and Italy, covering their respective dependencies.
The progress made already includes Anglo-French co-operation in an investigation of the breeding-grounds of the migratory locust in West Africa. His Majesty's Government have just received from the Committee on Locust Control of the Economic Advisory Council its fourth report, which deals with this question and is now under consideration. The programme of future work in co-operation is to be discussed at a further inter-national meeting in Paris next July, and this will afford a convenient opportunity of considering any recommendations made in the report.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by his Department to confer with officials from the information agencies of British tropical Colonies and other colonial representatives in London, with a view to the drafting of a comprehensive scheme for the development of colonial trade before the commencement of the Ottawa Conference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am in constant touch, not only with the trade agencies of the Colonies, but with those who are in a position to speak for the varied trade interests of different groups of Colonies. I am also in communication with all Colonial Governors on the possibilities of the extension of trade between the Dominions and the Colonies.

Mr. MAXTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, having regard to the disturbances arising from unemployment, if this question will be placed on the agenda of the Ottawa Conference as a separate item?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The object of the Conference at Ottawa is, in accordance with the Resolution passed by the Imperial Conference of 1930,
to examine fully the various means by which inter-Imperial trade may best be maintained and extended.
We certainly hope that one of the most; valuable results of the work of the Conference will be increase of employment in the several parts of the Empire.

Mr. MAXTON: Will unemployment not be a specific subject on the agenda for special consideration, and also the various troubles that are arising in different parts of the Empire?

Mr. THOMAS: I assume not, but I assume that when we are approaching the problem of inter-Imperial trade, we shall have clearly in our minds all the time that a reduction in unemployment must or ought to result from our efforts.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is there any reason why unemployment should not be put on the agenda as an item for discussion?

Mr. THOMAS: No reason, but it is far more important to discuss means for employment.

NOETHERN RHODESIA (NEW CAPITAL).

Captain CAZALET: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to whether the Government of Northern Rhodesia has yet finally decided upon the location of its new capital?

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: The Government of Northern Rhodesia decided on Lusaka as the site of the new capital.

Captain CAZALET: In the interests of economy, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Governor the postponement of the building of this new capital for the time being?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That requires very careful consideration. I have sanctioned a certain amount of work which had been arranged for; but the rate of progress must obviously depend on financial conditions. There are many difficulties in having a capital so close to the border and there is general agreement as to the need of a change.

EAST AFRICA (AERODROMES AND ROADS).

Captain CAZALET: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many all-weather aerodromes there are in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I under stand that there are about 75 aerodromes
and landing grounds in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. My information does not enable me to say which of them can be regarded as all-weather landing grounds.

Captain CAZALET: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many miles of all-weather roads are administered and maintained by the Public Works Department in Tanganyika outside townships?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Outside townships and district headquarters, the Public Works Department is responsible for 2,652 miles of main roads and 757 miles of district roads, Grade A. These are earth roads, but can be used for the greater portion of the year.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLONIES).

Captain ERSKJNE-BOLST: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to publish lists of films which are passed by the new Advisory Committee as appropriate for exhibition in British colonies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on the 18th of April. The question of publication is one for the decision of the Company concerned and not of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD-RAIL CONFERENCE.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will invite representatives of the National Safety First Association and the Pedestrians' Association to be members of the Rail and Road Conference with the purpose of ensuring consideration as to the nature and extent of the regulation which, in view of modern developments, should be applied to goods transport by road and by rail; and whether the conference will consider what regulation as to goods transport by road should be made so as to reduce the number of deaths and accidents of both motorists and pedestrians?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): While I regret that it is not possible to offer these associations direct representation on the conference in ques-
tion, I gladly renew my assurance that all interests concerned will have an opportunity of expressing their views before any action is taken on the findings of the conference.

HIGHWAY CODE (WALES).

Major OWEM: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that several of the statutory rules and regulations relating to mines and quarries and to agriculture are published in the Welsh language; and will he therefore cause to be published in Welsh the statutory rules and regulations under the Road Transport Act?

Mr. PYBUS: On the information before me, I am not convinced that the cost of a separate issue of the highway code in the Welsh language would be justified by the probable demand, but I should be quite willing to discuss the matter with my hon. and gallant Friend.

HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called: to the fact that many of the public service vehicles condemned by his inspectors as unsuitable for carrying passengers are converted into lorries for the purpose of carrying goods; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking some action in the matter, in view of the dangers caused by the presence of such heavy vehicles on the road in an imperfect condition?

Mr. PYBUS: I am aware that this has happened in some cases. I will bear the hon. and gallant Member's point in mind when I come to consider the report of the Road-Rail Conference.

Captain MACDONALD: When does the hon. Member expect the conference to report?

Mr. PYBUS: Before the end of July.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 34.
asked tht Minister of Transport the number of registrations of Diesel or other heavy-oil engined motor vehicles in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931?

Mr. PYBUS: The returns at present furnished by local authorities do not distinguish such vehicles, but with their growth I am considering whether the returns should not record them separately.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: In view of the fact that those vehicles do not pay their fair share of motor taxation, will the hon. Gentleman consider recommending a tax on Diesel oils to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, I will consider all relevant matters concerning this type of vehicle.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister must be very careful what he does here, because it is a question of interfering with the development of the Diesel engine, which is very necessary to engineering at the moment.

PRIVATE MOTOR CARS (GOODS).

Mr. HALES: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision in the King's Bench Divisional Court that it is illegal to carry goods or parcels in a private motor car; and, having regard to the possibility of the prosecution of motor owners, if he will take immediate steps for the removal of this restriction?

Mr. PYBUS: Immediately after the decision of the Divisional Court to which my hon. Friend refers I got into consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the situation which has been created, and will make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HALES: In view of the very serious trouble among the small traders who are using their cars partly for business and partly for pleasure, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that they may be able in the meantime to use those cars without the fear of any police interference?

Mr. PYBUS: No, Sir, I cannot give any such assurance, but I have caused a circular to be sent to licensing and registration authorities requesting them to maintain their existing practice pending the further consideration of the matter.

Mr. PIKE: Can my hon. Friend say whether the owner of a private car is entitled to take home a pound of vegetables?

ROAD PASSENGERS (FACILITIES, THAMES EMBANKMENT).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in
view of its importance to foreign visitors, he will arrange that facilities for passengers waiting shall be provided at the motor coach stopping places on the Embankment?

Mr. PYBUS: While I am anxious to assist foreign visitors to London in every possible way I have no power to arrange for facilities to be provided for passengers waiting at the motor coach stopping places on the Embankment, and on the other hand I wish to encourage the provision of these facilities on private property and not on the public highway.

MOTOR COACH SERVICES, LONDON.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for the representation of the interests of the public of inner and outer London before the special committee appointed to inquire into and consider various points of principle in connection with motor coach services to and from the Metropolitan area?

Mr. PYBUS: Provision has already been made by which the views of the public may be laid before the committee. Notice to this effect was issued to Associations of Local Authorities and to the Press on the 30th March. I will send the hon. Member a copy of this notice.

WITHDRAWN OMNIBUS SERVICES (RETURN TICKETS).

Mr. KIMBALL: 35.
(for
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that where omnibus services are withdrawn at short notice by order of the traffic commissioners, the public have no opportunity of using the return halves of their tickets; and whether he will instruct the commissioners that reasonable notice should be given to the public before services are withdrawn?

Mr. PYBUS: I have heard of one or two cases where difficulties have arisen, but I will bring the point to the notice of the commissioners.

SUGAR INDUSTRY (CONFERENCE).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if it is proposed to hold an Imperial
Sugar-Cane Research Conference this year, and where; and what recommendation was made by the Empire Marketing Board on the scientific needs of the cane-sugar industry of the British Empire following the last conference?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, it is not proposed to hold an Empire Conference on sugar-cane research this year. As regards the second part, the report of the Imperial Sugar-Cane Research Conference held last year has been published by the Empire Marketing Board and careful examination is now being given by the Board to the problem of allocating such limited funds as may be available for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Conference.

FISH PRICES.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department or the Food Council is now checking the accuracy of the prices of fish published by the Billingsgate market authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The question of the method of compilation of the fish prices to which my hon. Friend refers was dealt with in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) on the 13th April, Until a conclusion has been reached as to the relevant recommendation of the Fishing Industry Committee it is not possible to say what action it may be found desirable to take.

CIDER.

Mr. PARKINSON: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of cider produced in Britain in 12 months to the last convenient date; and how much was used for home consumption and the quantity exported?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: According to the returns obtained in connection with the Census of Production taken in respect of the year 1924, the total production of cider and perry in the United Kingdom
in that year amounted to 6,745,000 gallons. The domestic exports in 1924 amounted to 124,000 gallons, and the retained imports to 1,114,000 gallons. The total amount available for home consumption was therefore 7,735,000 gallons. The corresponding figures from the Census of Production for 1930 will not be available until the autumn of this year. Particulars respecting cider alone are not available.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman confer with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to seeing that this commodity pays a due tax comparable to the tax on other commodities of a like kind?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is this not the only type of wholesome drink which is not taxed, and will not the right hon. Gentleman leave it un-taxed?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the policy of the Government to make no reductions in tariffs during the next 12 months even in return for reciprocal reductions by foreign Powers?

Mr. COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government share the view of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the duties imposed by the recent Order should not in general be reduced during the next 12 months. In the general interests of United Kingdom trade, however, it may well prove that some modification in them may be found expedient even within that period, if it should prove possible to secure in return important reductions in foreign duties which promise substantial advantages to our export trade.

Mr. WANDER: Does that mean that the Government are prepared to negotiate with foreign countries at once for a mutual reduction of tariffs?

Mr. COLVILLE: The hon. Member must study my answer, and then, I hope, be will appreciate the value of tariff bargaining.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Commissioners of Customs have ruled that bristle cannot be regarded as raw hair and is, therefore, subject to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty; that this decision is based on the fact that imported bristle is disinfected to ensure freedom from anthrax; and will he take steps to ensure that necessary health precautions are not administratively regarded as manufacturing processes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): It is not the case that bristles have been ruled to be liable to general ad valorem duty merely because they have been disinfected before being imported. The bristles which have been held to be liable to duty are bristles which have been dressed and sorted or otherwise processed, so that they no longer come within the description "Wool and animal hair (raw) whether cleaned, scoured or carbonised or not," to which the exemption from general ad valorem duty in favour of animal hair is limited.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it a fact that ordinary bristles if they go through no process other than disinfection are in-eluded in the Free List?

Major ELLIOT: Bristles which come within the definition which I have just read to my hon. Friend would come within the Free List.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the descriptions that he has given do not tally with the trade descriptions, and will he look into the matter and see whether his descriptions can be made to tally with what is in universal use in the trade?

Major ELLIOT: Certainly.

Mr. LAWSON: Why not apply that answer to the Government?

GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).

Mr. LAWSON: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the resolution received from the exporting interests of the North-east Coast in respect of the German quota; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

Mr. COLVILLE: The resolution moved by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Chamber of Commerce and adopted at the recent meeting of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce calls attention to the restrictions placed upon the importation of British coal into Germany and rages that in the absence of an immediate settlement appropriate action should at once be taken in regard to German imports into this country. Further strong representations in the matter were made to the German Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin on the 19th April, and a reply is expected shortly.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the bargaining power of his duties is not so promptly effective as he said it would be?

Mr. COLVILLE: The hon. Member had better await the reply of the German Government.

Mr. LAWSON: Did the resolution state that pits were being closed in the north of England as a result of this policy?

Mr. COLVILLE: No, Sir. But I am aware of the effect of the German restrictions on the British coal trade.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES EXHIBITION, COPENHAGEN.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any financial assistance is to be given to the British Industries Fair to be held in Copenhagen in September; and what action is being taken by the Government to secure an increase in the export of British manufactures to Denmark?

Mr. COLVILLE: As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on 11th April. With regard to the second part of the question, I am in close consultation with a number of industries with a view to taking advantage of the opportunities provided by. that market The trade returns for the first two months of 1932 show an improvement in United Kingdom exports to Denmark.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does the hon. Member know that impediments to trade
between Denmark and this country are to be found in the arrangements between manufacturers in this country and in Denmark?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware that there are certain trade arrangements which are framed with reference to trade as a whole, but the enthusiasm in Denmark for British goods is causing a very close interest to be taken in that country by our manufacturers.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the hon. Member satisfied that there is an awakened interest among manufacturers in this side?

Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. I would ask the hon. Member not to believe every story that he hears about the slackness of British manufacturers.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUPPLIES.

Mr. REMER: 49.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the probable increased demand for coal from steel manufacturers as a result of the new duties on semi-finished and other steels, and to the fact that consequently there is likely to be a shortage of coal suppliable under the quota in the last month of the present quarter from the mines able to supply this coal at the cheapest rate; and if he will state what steps he intends to take to avoid the inconvenience?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I would remind my hon. Friend that provision is made in the Central Scheme in force under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, for additional allocations to be made during any quarter to meet any increased demand for coal. I have no doubt that the District Executive Boards and the Central Council will not overlook the necessity for ensuring that adequate supplies of coal are available to meet any increased demand from the iron and steel industry.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon the officials in question the fact that this point of view is a probability. and that they will be prepared well in advance?

Mr. FOOT: I have no doubt that all these matters are being carefully watched by the Boards which have been set up for the purpose.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member watching the matter also?

Mr. FOOT: I am watching the matter every day.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pits have been closed in the North directly as a result of the Tariff policy when they were able to supply more than the quota?

SILICOSIS.

Mr. TINKER: 50.
for
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of workpeople in the coal mining industry suffering from silicosis during the latest 12 months for which figures are available and the number who received compensation for this disease, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): Silicosis is not notifiable and the only figures I can give are those of cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Returns under that Act show that in 1930—which is the last year for which figures are at present available— there were 20 cases in which coal miners recovered compensation for disablement from silicosis. Information as to the distribution of these cases is not complete, but so far as known, only one of them occurred in Lancashire. I may add that I am informed that the Medical Board, which was set up in June last, has not so far issued any certificate in respect of any coal miner in Lancashire.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the returns, seeing that the number given is so small that it cannot be in keeping with the numbers suffering from the disease?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I cannot form any opinion as to that. The matter is one for expert inquiry by a medical board.

DANGEROUS DRUGS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 54.
asked the Home Secretary what was the production
in Britain during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1931, of cocaine, codeine, dionin, heroin, morphine, and peronin; whether the production was in excess of the requirements for medical and scientific purposes; and whether the convention for the limitation of the manufacture of narcotic drugs is operative in Great Britain?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As the answer to the first part of the question contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative.

Following are the figures:

ozs.


Cocaine Alkaloid and Salts
14,903.038


Codeine
12,525.74


Dionin
2,013.06


Heroin (Diacetylmorphine)
3,326.4


Morphine Alkaloid and Salts
46,520.74


Peronin
Nil.

TEA DUTY.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in making regulations for the collection of the Excise Duty on stocks of tea in traders' hands, he will exempt from duty the first 1,000 lbs. of all such stocks in order to prevent unfair discrimination between traders?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to yesterday's Debate in the House on this point on an Amendment to the Budget Tea Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead).

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour in what industries the weekly hours of the workpeople are 48 or less; and how many men and women, respectively, are employed in those industries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In the great majority of organised industries the normal weekly hours of labour fixed by agreement between employers and workpeople are 48 or less. Particulars of the hours recog-
nised in each of the principal industries at 31st December, 1930, will be found on pages 83 to 86 of the "Twentieth Abstract of Labour Statistics" (Cmd. 3831). Statistics are not available as to the numbers of men and women, respectively, employed in industries in which the hours are 48 or less, but some information as to the proportions of workpeople working a normal week of 48 hours, over 48 hours, and less than 48 hours in a large number of industries in the year 1924, as shown by the results of a special inquiry made by the Ministry of Labour, will be found on page 102 of the same "Abstract."

ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAY COMPANY.

Lord SCONE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in regard to the Anglo-Argentine Tramway Company?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the Mayor of Buenos Aires has submitted to the municipality an emergency tariff scheme, involving an increase of tramway fares, which is now under consideration, and that the plan for the formation of a traffic combine, referred to in the reply given to my Noble Friend on the 6th of April, is now being studied and discussed by the various interested parties.

Lord SCONE: Can the hon. and gallant Member give any idea when he will be able to make a fuller statement on this important matter?

Mr. EDEN: No, I am afraid that I cannot. Now that these discussions are going on, we must await the result.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not this a question of our interfering with the internal affairs of another country?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. There are British interests concerned.

PALESTINE (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 24.
for
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House as to the methods in operation in Palestine for ascertaining the numbers of unemployed; and if it is proposed to adopt machinery for the purpose of arriving at reliable figures?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: District officers are responsible for the initial collection of unemployment statistics in the smaller towns and villages and immigration officers are responsible for this work in Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa-Tel-Aviv. It is proposed that the district officers should be assisted in this work by officers of the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Forestry and Education, which are in close contact with the public. The appointment has recently been approved of an additional officer in the Department of Immigration, who will act as adviser to the officers engaged in the collection of intelligence and be responsible for co-ordinating all the detailed reports.

BRITISH ARMY (TRAINING, MITCHAM COMMON).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 38.
for
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what days of the week it is proposed to use Mitcham Common for the training of the Regular Army; what will be the nature of the training; and if it will be such as will interfere with the free use of the common by the general public?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am informed that conversations are taking place between the local military authorities and the conservators of Mitcham Common regarding the use of the common by small parties of Infantry range-takers. Such use would in no way interfere with the free use of the common by the public.

POOR LAW RELIEF, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 41.
for
asked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied persons in receipt of public assistance in Lancashire; the number subjected to test work; and the nature of the test work in operation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): In the geographical County of Lancashire the average number of men ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation in receipt of relief during March last was approximate
29,000. The returns so far received show 2,545 of these men to have been set to work, trained or instructed during the month. The work required is of various types, including garden work and the sawing, chopping and bundling of wood and, in certain areas, elementary education, physical training and instruction in handicrafts.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Has the hon. Member's attention been called to the fact that the chairman of the Public Assistance Committee for Lancashire has lost his job as Labour agent because he is faithfully trying to carry out his work?

MENTAL TREATMENT, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 42.
for
asked the Minister of Health the number of patients in the mentals hospitals in Lancashire on the 31st December, 1930, and at the latest date on which figures are available, giving separate figures for males and females?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of patients in the mental hospitals of the Lancashire Mental Hospital Board was:


—
Males.
Females.
Total.


On the 31st December, 1930.
5,992
7,312
13,304


On the 31st December, 1931.
6,059
7,345
13,404

POLICE BOXES.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 53.
for
asked the Home Secretary the number of police boxes similar to the one in Mitcham Lane that are to be erected in the Metropolitan Police area; and what other developments for the more efficient use of the police are to be adopted in the London and Greater London area?

Sir H. SAMUEL: 160 police boxes of this kind are already in use or in course of erection in the Metropolitan Police district, and 40 more will be added shortly. It is not possible at this stage to state what will be the total number to be brought into use as the police box system is extended to other parts of the district. The Commissioner of Police is making every effort towards the most efficient use of the force at his disposal, but for obvious reasons it would not be desirable to indicate his measures too closely.

OATHS BILL.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, as amended by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
Numerous changes have taken place in connection with the procedure of taking the Oath in this House since 1866 in order to permit Jews, Quakers, Roman Catholics and those who disbelieve or have a doubt in the existence of a. Supreme Being to sit in this House, and in order that we should conform to the religious or lack of religious opinions of individuals. Complete liberty is the order of the day so far as all sections of the community are concerned. I quite agree with the changes that have taken place on the ground of religious belief. It is quite impossible to make a man a Christian by any act of coercion on the part of this House, and I desire an expansion in order to enable Socialists and Republicans to come into this House without being coerced into taking an oath in which they do not believe. I want liberty to present this Bill to the House without giving offence to any section who may have a different belief to my own. In connection with the famous case of Charles Bradlaugh, which was taken to the Court of Appeal on 28th January, 1885, the Court of Appeal decided that:
A Member of Parliament who does not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, and upon whom an oath has no binding effect as an oath but only as a solemn promise, is incapable by law of making and subscribing to the Parliamentary Oath and if he took his seat would be liable to penalties under the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866.
I agree with that decision. No person should be required to take an oath with which they disagree. Let me read the Oath which has now to be taken:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George, his heirs and successors according to law.
The other form is that
I do solemnly declare and affirm that I will be faithful
and so on. I suggest that it is outrageous to ask a Member who holds Socialist opinions, because every Socialist should be a Republican whether he admits it or not, as his first duty on entering this House to commit a public act of perjury. It may be said that when a Member approaches the Table he has every liberty of refusing to take the Oath. My first inclination on entering this House was to approach the Table and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I could not honestly take an oath to which I did not fully subscribe, but I was advised that I must get the support of the House in order to modify and change the form of the Oath. I am conforming to that advice. This is the first opportunity the House has had of making a modification or change in the form of the Oath, and if the Bill which I am asking leave to present is turned down you are encouraging, in my opinion, public perjury. You have no right to ask any person to perjure himself in order to enter this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "You can stay out!"] To say that we can stay out is a very poor argument for the most democratic institution in the world. We should make it as easy as possible for everyone to enter the House. It is no argument to say that we can stay out or that we should keep our real democratic opinions and thoughts from the House.
There are people who may say that the Oath is a mere function which we should take with certain mental reservations. I know that mental reservations are possible, but they are not desirable; and we are not entitled to condemn perjury in the witness box, which may sometimes save a man from the scaffold, and encourage it in this House. I, as a Socialist, cannot take an oath of allegiance to a symbol which I am out to destroy. If I am out to destroy a system of society I
cannot take the Oath sincerely and honestly, when I want to destroy completely the system of society represented by that symbol. Many people may wish to keep their republican opinions in the background, but I desire to declare my opinions openly in regard to the taking of the Oath. I do not want to coerce any Member of the House who believes in the Monarchy. I do not seek to deprive him of the liberty of subscribing to an Oath which he feels he can conscientiously take, and while I do not want to apply coercion to any individual I certainly do not want coercion applied to myself and my friends. Therefore, I ask the House to give me leave to introduce this Measure. No oath which I may take in this House can make me, as an individual, loyal to a system and a symbol which I am out completely to eradicate. We are told that this is the most democratic assembly in the world. I ask the House to conform to the idea of real democracy and to give me liberty to introduce this Bill. The law of progress is dynamic not static, and in presenting this Bill I believe I am conforming to enlightened and progressive opinion outside.

Sir GERALD HURST: It is the common practice to give a First Reading to any type of Bill brought in by a Private Member, and, had this been a normal sort of Bill, I should not have risen to oppose the First Reading, because it is always interesting to see the details of a Bill an outline of which has been given in a 10 minutes' speech. It is always interesting to follow the aberrations of the human mind in these matters. This particular ease, however, is, in my submission, quite out of the ordinary, and at the present time it would be a disgrace and, I think, a disaster, for this House to send a message to the world that it considered this Bill one which was open at all to discussion by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has given the words of the Oath of Allegiance which, as he rightly says, is at the present time taken by all Members of the House, including himself. The Bradlaugh case is not in point at all. After the Bradlaugh case, the Oaths Act of 1888 was passed, and it enabled anybody who boggled at the taking of an Oath to affirm his loyalty instead.
The Oath adds nothing to the obligation. It is simply a recognition of a common duty of citizenship, and Members of all parties, for generations, have been willing to take it. The hon. Member has said that it is difficult to Socialists, but it has been taken by generations of Socialists and what was good enough for Keir Hardie should be good enough for the hon. Member. He himself has described the taking of the Oath as nothing less than a public act of perjury. He stands self-convicted. In actual fact this Oath is a symbol of something which Members of all parties, I think, are agreed in cherishing. We differ from one another in many respects and sometimes we differ bitterly, but it is a good thing to take the Oath as being a symbol of our recognition that, on the big things of national life, we are all members one of another, that we are one and indivisible, knit together by a common loyalty and inspired by a common purpose. The Oath means that and nothing less than that.
Moreover, it has the great virtue that, in spite of the hon. Member's reflection that such an oath is contrary to real democratic thought, all the democratic thinkers of the Parliaments of our Dominions have taken that Oath since they became self-governing States. The Oath which we take is not an Oath peculiar to this House, but one which is characteristic of all the legislatures throughout the British Empire. It is, in fact, the one legal link which remains, and one which no self-respecting Dominion thinks of doing away with. Although the Empire includes men of many creeds and many colours and many races, this common allegiance is one of the things which we all cherish, and, in

an era when we have to face, as a nation and an Empire, acute nationalism on all sides, we ought to value and to be proud beyond words of everything which is a symbol of the unity which binds the States of the British Commonwealth of Nations one to another.

It would at this time be disastrous if we gave out to the world that here, in the Mother of Parliaments, here in the heart of the Empire, we had an open mind on this question, or that we contemplated paltering in any way with the allegiance which we are all proud to profess. If we tolerate the First Reading of this Bill, we give out to the world that we contemplate a possible weakening of our allegiance; that we contemplate the possibility of disloyalty to the great traditions of our Empire, and that, some of us at any rate, are prepared to make common cause with those who believe in flouting the most sacred and solemn obligations into which any State can possibly enter. I feel convinced that the vast majority in this House, including the Members of the Labour party—if I may respectfully make an appeal to them—are at one on this point of allegiance to the Throne, and it is because I believe that I am expressing, not only the views of my own party but the views of Members of all parties, that I say that to give a First Reading to this Measure would be at once a disgrace and a disaster, and I ask the House to reject it.

Question put: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, as amended by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868."

The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 294.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
13.26 p.m.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Buchanan, George
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Kirkwood.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Albery, Irving James
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Broadbent, Colonel John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bernays, Robert
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Browne, Captain A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Borodale, Viscount
Buchan, John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boulton, W. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Calne, Q. R. Hall-
Harbord, Arthur
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Harris, Sir Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hartland, George A.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Castle Stewart, Earl
Harvey Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hepworth, Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Christie, James Archibald
Hirst, George Henry
Petherlck, M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clarke, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickering, Ernest H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horobin, Ian M.
Potter, John


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pybus, Percy John


Colville, John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hutchison, w. D. (Essex, Romford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooke, Douglas
Jamleson, Douglas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsden, E.


Copeland, Ida
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ray, Sir William


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cranborne, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Remer, John R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Robinson, John Roland


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Knight, Holford
Rosbotham, S. T.


Curry, A. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lawson, John James
Runge, Norah Cecil


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dickie, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Hamer Field (Shel'ld, B'tside)


Doran, Edward
Leigh, Sir John
Salmon, Major Isidore


Drewe, Cedric
Leighton, Major B E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lennox-Boyd A. T.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Eady, George H.
Lindsay Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Savery, Samuel Servington


Edwards, Charles
Llewellin Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elmley, viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lunn, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Somerset, Thomas


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mabane, William
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Soper, Richard


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Capt J O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Fox, Sir Gifford
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKeag, William
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Ganzonl, sir John
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Stevenson, James


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stones, James


Gledhill, Gilbert
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Storey, Samuel


Glossop, C. W. H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maitland, Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Goldie, Noel B.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Granville, Edgar
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Templeton, William P.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorne, William James


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milne, Charles
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hales, Harold K.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Munro, Patrick
Weymouth, Viscount


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
White, Henry Graham


Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)




Wills, Wilfrid D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, S. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Sir Gerald Hurst and Major McLean.


Womersley, Walter James
Worthington, Dr. John V.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to the powers and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames with respect to the conservancy preservation and regulation of the Thames above the landward limit of the Port of London." [Thames Conservancy Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Bridgwater to abandon certain waterworks authorised by the Bridgwater Corporation Act, 1928, and to construct new waterworks; and for other purposes." [Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords].]

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords],

BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Ramsden; and had appointed in substitution: Major Jesson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [19TH APRIL].

Order read for Consideration of Fifth and subsequent Resolutions.

Fifth Resolution (Amendments of Import Duties Act, 1932) read a Second time.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I beg to move, to leave out lines 3 to 6.
The purpose of the Resolution is to enable the Board of Trade to hand over to the Tariff Advisory Committee power to make recommendations for Orders to be made with respect to all articles referred to in the First Schedule to the Act of 1932. We would like to have some explanation as to why it is that when an Act of Parliament is hardly dry upon the Statute Book, an important Amendment of the kind now proposed is brought before this House. When the Import Duties Act was discussed, it was discussed upon the assumption that all the foodstuffs and raw materials and the various articles set forth in the First Schedule were not to be within the prerogative of the Tariff Committee. Now, however, the proposal is that, without adequate discussion in this House, it will be possible for the Tariff Advisory Committee to make recommendations for the imposition of duties on meat and wheat, and for the Government to make Orders to put import duties upon the foodstuffs of the people although Parliament may not be sitting. It may be possible for the consumers of foodstuffs to be made to pay more for their food for two or three months without Parliament having an opportunity of considering the duties. It will be possible for the Government, upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, to put a duty upon imported food without the House having any opportunity of considering it, because it may not be sitting. It is true that the House must approve an Order within 28 days of its being laid, or the Order may be annulled, but it is also true that the House may not be sitting and that the period when it is not sitting will not be counted in the 28 days.
Whatever arguments may have influenced the House of Commons to allow
these grave matters to be handed over to the Tariff Advisory Committee, there is no case for handing over to it the articles contained in the First Schedule of the Act. On many platforms, pledges were given and promises were made that, whatever tariffs were imposed, the food of the people at least would not be taxed. It was also made clear by the Prime Minister at Seaham that the purchasing power of the British pound was to be preserved. It passes comprehension how anyone can argue that the purchasing power of the pound will be preserved for working-class people if their food is to be made to cost them more. It may, of course, be possible, to make a narrow view of it, that the Government will indulge in inflation and preserve the purchasing value of the pound in view of the additional taxes on foodstuffs. The Government are now proposing to assemble a set of conditions in which, in the easiest possible way and with the least publicity, the Prime Minister is to be allowed to run away from his pledge. If the Government intend to put food taxes on, why do they not do it in a decent, straightforward way, and bring their proposals before the House in a proper manner? Why do they adopt this back-stairs method of doing it? Is it in order to let the Liberal Members of the Cabinet down as lightly as possible, and to sneak food taxes through without their noticing it because a full discussion on the Floor of the House might cause embarrassment to the House of Commons and Viscount Snowden might be called upon to defend his Free Trade faith in another barren discussion in the House of Lords? Do they wish to avoid these embarrassments so that food taxes may be imposed with the minimum amount of political inconvenience?
It appears to me that a great revolution is overtaking our Parliamentary procedure. It has been suggested for some time that there ought to be a speeding up of our Parliamentary machinery, that our method of making law is too cumbersome and not sufficiently flexible, and that there ought to be a short-circuiting of our methods. I thought that it had been accepted as a cardinal principle of Parliamentary practice that no power should be given to impose taxes without the fullest possible protection of discussion in the House. No more effective way of undermining Parliamentary institutions could be adopted than the
present proposal. These powers are not being conferred on the Tariff Advisory Committee because it is a very complicated business. It is not because the House of Commons is cumbersome and has not at its disposal the power to summon witnesses and take evidence. If it were an extremely complicated matter in which we should require the recommendations of experts, we could understand the Advisory Committee having these powers. Whenever criticism has been made by Liberal Members that the Tariff Advisory Committee has proceeded with its recommendations with almost indecent haste without taking evidence from powerful sections of the community, the answer is given from the Government Bench that all the evidence has been collected years ago, that everybody knows everything about it, and that there is really no need to have a long-drawn-out inquiry.
4.0 p.m.
If all the facts were known about food taxes, if the Government's mind were made up, and if the evidence were clear, why was the matter sent to the Tariff Advisory Committee? I have always understood that the purpose of an advisory committee is to provide the Government with the expert opinion which it lacks. The purpose of the Tariff Advisory Committee is not, as we understand now, to give the Government expert opinion, to provide them with properly sifted evidence, and to give them impartial judgments; it is merely a device to take from the Floor of the House of Commons the most unpleasant pieces of legislation and to get them through by methods which are reprehensible in themselves and fraught with disastrous consequences for the reputation of Parliament. I believe that an attempt was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Import Duties Act was before the House to get this Amendment included, and I shall probably be told that this Resolution was part of the general scheme and that it is not an attempt to amend an Act of Parliament in an important section any different from what was intended when the Act was brought before the House in the first instance. I know we shall be told that. Nevertheless, it is profoundly true that the whole psychology of the country and of this House was greatly influenced by the fact that, extensive though the powers of the
Tariff Advisory Committee were, they did not include foodstuffs. Now, of course, they are to be included, unless this Amendment meets with the approval of the House. It is true that an opportunity will be given on further Amendments to discuss the various foodstuffs, but we on this side of the House desire to register most emphatically (a), that the power of imposing taxes is being taken away from the Floor of the House of Commons; (b), that it is being handed over to a committee which, as has already been shown, is not a judicial committee at all, but has proceeded to make its recommendations in a manner which casts grave reflection upon a committee appointed by this House; and (c), that the Government now propose to assemble a set of circumstances in which it will be made easier to run away from their election pledges and make the cost of living higher to the working classes of this country without giving the electorate as a whole a proper opportunity of expressing its opinions through the House of Commons. This method of procedure casts grave reflection, not only on the Cabinet itself, but on the honour and prestige of the House of Commons.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) seems to overlook the very definite undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion, I think, of the Third Reading of the Import Duties Bill that this Amendment would be brought forward in the Finance Bill. In those circumstances, a good deal of his indignation was rather wasted. He spoke of our having sacrificed the right of imposing taxes. That is already done in the Import Duties Act, because the right was given to increase taxes already imposed under that Act. But I would remind the hon. Member that one of the definite reasons for giving the undertaking was that there might be a proper inquiry into the question of newsprint, which originally the Government put on the Free List. There took place in Committee a very interesting Debate on the subject, and, in the course of it, many people were impressed by the desirability of news-
print being transferred from the Free List. The Government at the moment thought otherwise, but an undertaking was given that there should be an opportunity, through an Amendment of this kind, to have the case investigated by the Import Duties Committee, and I am certain the hon. Member opposite would not like to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to break Ms pledge.
I would like to go further and point out that the paragraph we are considering, in conjunction with the next paragraph, creates an entirely new situation, Because paragraph (2) deals with the question of drawbacks in respect to materials which have gone through the process of manufacture. If these drawbacks had been in the original Import Duties Bill, it is quite conceivable that some of the decisions taken by this House with regard to transferring things from the dutiable list to the Free List would not have been taken. There is the case of soya beans. I was one who supported soya beans being placed on the Free List because they are not produced in the British Empire, although ground nuts, peanuts or monkey nuts, as they are sometimes called, are an effective competitor, and as there happens to be a large export trade in soya beans, there was a risk of their being prejudiced, Now we are proposing to introduce into the Import Duties Act provisions with regard to drawbacks, and it may be that soya beans should be treated differently. I very much rejoice that this provision is to be incorporated in the Import Duties Act, because it is one more step in the direction of a scientific tariff.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I venture to suggest that these four lines in the Resolution raise a much larger issue than merely the question of giving power to a committee of three to add a certain number of articles to the Free List. The words are very significant, and create a very important constitutional precedent. If there is anything of which this House is jealous, it is the right not only to control but to decide what commodities should be taxed. New Members, I know, regard our machinery as cumbersome, clumsy and slow. From a financial point of view it has been deliberately devised to be cumbersome, clumsy and slow. Our ancestors regarded it as most important
to protect the public from taxation. Some suppose that this House exists only in order to propose taxes, but whether you regard this House as a taxing machine, or whether you regard its business as the protection of the public from taxes, it is a most constitutional duty of Parliament to retain control over the money bags. In these four lines of the Resolution we are going to hand over our powers to a committee of three set up by the Government—not by Parliament— who are to decide what articles shall be removed from the Free List and become taxable.
Let me remind the House what happens. It is true that in the end the House of Commons can intervene, but if the committee make a recommendation, all that the House has to do is to register the decree of the committee, and automatically the taxes are collected at the Customs House. It is true that the House for 28 days can intervene, but the House may be in Recess, as was. pointed out when the Bill was before Parliament, and you may have taxes being collected at the Customs House. We had a great controversy about soya beans. I have not the slightest doubt that representations would have been made to the committee, and the committee who are, after all, only human beings, would probably have taken soya beans out of the Free List and made them taxable, the taxes would have been collected and this House would not have been able to intervene for at least a month, and probably two or three months. It is a very serious precedent, and I suggest to some of my Conservative friends who love the constitution and believe in tradition and precedent, that we ought to consider very seriously the wisdom of extending to the Import Duties Act this long list of raw materials and foodstuffs. I see an hon. Friend opposite who, I believe, would put a tax on meat, but I am sure that he, a good constitutionalist, a great Conservative, be he Tariff Reformer, Protectionist or food taxer, would be sorry to see the safeguard provided by Parliament removed, and taxes imposed by what is, after all, a back door, to bring in a very large amount of revenue, because the articles on the Free List are to be subject to a duty of 10 per cent., which may mean 20, 30 or 50 per cent. As a
recent order shows, the goods in the Schedule come under an entirely different category, that is 10 per cent. It is reasonable to assume, then, that it would be partly of a protective character and partly of a revenue-producing character. Therefore, we can have three gentlemen sitting in an office, behind closed doors, deciding what article should be taxed, and collecting large amounts of revenue from the people of this country.
The Government ought to produce some very strong argument for this very unconstitutional practice. I can imagine the angry, righteous indignation if the late Labour Government had used such a procedure, and put into operation the Land Taxes, and, a committee having been set up, the Treasury had power by Order to say how land was to be taxed, but that Parliament should be able to intervene for 28 days or even longer. It would have been called a revolution. Talk about the Parliament Act and about removing the veto of the House of Lords! This is really tantamount to removing the veto of the House of Commons over taxation. I say that the Government—I do not say wittingly, but probably unconsciously — have been rushed into a wholly unconstitutional and unsound policy. I do not like, in these days, to remind the House of ancient history, but we must not forget that the foundation of Magna Charta was to give control to the people's representatives of the money bags.
No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our Kingdom unless by the general council of our Kingdom.
That is in Magna Charta, hon. Members will be interested to hear. Apparently they were more advanced in 1215 than they are in 1932 in regard to handing over to the executive the powers of taxation. The Bill of Eights, in 1688, laid down the principle:
Henceforth shall no man be compelled to make any gift, loan or benevolence or tax without common consent by Act of Parliament.
Henceforth, in 1932, articles are to be taxable without the approval of Parliament, and taxes are to be levied, if the Treasury so desire, and, following precedent the other day, they would so desire, to rush them through so as to prevent—that would be the argument— evasion, and taxes are to be collected
without the ordinary machinery of the House of Commons. I am not questioning the power of the House of Commons to put on what taxes they like. If the majority of the House of Commons want to tax food, they have the power to do it. Many Members want to tax food. I do not take the line that election pledges override the power of the House of Commons. I have never taken the line that Members are delegates, because the House of Commons is supreme, but the procedure which has been built up in the light of experience is a safeguard against the wrong kind of taxation. Let hon. Members look through the list. Reference has been made to paper. Great pressure was brought to bear to make paper taxable. All kinds of vested interests are knocking at the door of the committee of three, and there is no safeguard that that committee will not use the powers they have to impose taxes amounting to many millions.
There is also this important point. This is a needy Government wanting revenue. In the summer we may be in the position of finding that the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not likely to be fulfilled, that Ms calculations were wrong, and if this committee of three take a large number of articles out of the Free List it will be a temptation for the Treasury to make the necessary Orders confirming their action. The House will be in Recess, some of the Ministers will be in Ottawa and some in Lausanne, and we may have those duties collected for three months without the constitutional approval of this House. I protest most vigorously against this departure from precedent, because it is a thoroughly unconstitutional proceeding. Ours is not a written Constitution, but based on practice, custom and tradition, and I protest against our constitutional practices being overridden in this rough-handed way by a Government which has an immense majority. It is creating a very bad precedent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the last occasion on which this principle was raised the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and I crossed swords about it. It was on an Amendment to effect the same purpose as this Amendment which had been put down by the Labour Opposition, who wanted to retain Parliamentary control under the Imports
Regulation Bill. The Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and I decided to divide the House, but we got no support on that occasion. The two of us were called upon to stand in our places. I would remind the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the Labour Opposition that what is being proposed under this Resolution introduces no new principle, although it may be true to say that its application is to be applied on a much larger scale. It may be that the committee are to be given powers to deal with more controversial matters than those to which this principle has been applied in the past, but it is no new principle. Indeed, the Labour Government themselves introduced it, but the people to be dealt with then were regarded, no doubt, as of lesser importance; there were no large trading concerns involved. Certainly the Labour Government did agree to the principle in connection with the Anomalies Act. On that occasion I was bitterly opposed to power being given to an advisory council to make regulations saying whether or not poor people should have benefit. The conditions in that ease were even worse, because I understand that here there is a limit of 28 days during which their recommendations can operate without the approval of Parliament—unless Parliament is in Recess—whereas under the Anomalies Act there was no time limit, and all that a Member could do was to raise the question in the House himself.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Legislation by Order-in-Council is not a new principle, it is an old part of the Constitution, but the imposition of food taxes by order is certainly new.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have already said that—that what we are doing now is no more than an extension on a larger scale of what we have done hitherto; but is the hon. Member going to tell me that the taking away of unemployment benefit from people is less important than imposing food taxes? Those people had paid their insurance contributions, and yet we were handing over to an outside authority the right of depriving them of benefit. This is no new principle; to me the procedure is alike in both cases. At the same time I suggest to whoever is going to reply on behalf of the Government that this practice has become an
important issue which Parliament must really face. In all Acts of Parliament there is now a wholesale delegation of power to outside bodies really to make the law itself. We pass the outlines of an Act, but leave it to other people to determine what it is really going to do. All we decide upon here is the rough outline; the details are not sanctioned by Parliament but are filled in by some outside body. It has often been the case that after we have passed Acts of Parliament the Law Courts of the country have had to define them, but there was at least this merit about that procedure, that it was done by judges trained for the work, and the points at issue were argued in public and before the Press of the country.
What we are doing here, however, is, in effect, to make an Act of Parliament in secret, without any examination of the facts in public, and with the public having no knowledge of the evidence on which the decisions are based. There is this difference between the judges and the committee presided over by Sir George May. It has hitherto always been held, and I think with some effect, that the judges are above outside pressure, that there are not the same economic forces behind them. But what guarantee have we that this committee though composed of very estimable gentlemen, will be outside the sphere of pressure? What guarantee have we, seeing that their deliberations take place in private, that such forces are not at work? Further, when the judges define a law they give their decision after both sides of the case have been fully argued before them in public. Here we may have the law determined without the case having been argued in any real way at all. The Lord Chief Justice, in a work which an old colleague of mine, Mr. Campbell Stephen, and I have been going through recently, has pointed out how one by one the real rights of Parliament are being taken away under successive Acts of Parliament, because, as I have said, all that is being left to us is to pass a Bill dealing with a certain subject, but with all the details—all that gives it any real effect—filled in by some outside body.
If Parliament desires to take benefits away from poor, defenceless people, or to introduce food duties, let Parliament debate it and let Parliament decide in what way those laws are to be enforced. Let
us know in Parliament what is to be the extent of the ramifications of such legislation. I appeal for support to those who are associated with the law, and who still have some regard for the traditions of this House. It is strange that it should be left to one who belongs to the smallest group in this House to plead for the maintenance of Parliamentary control. Those associated with the Bar have been warned by the judges against allowing the Legislature to be set at nought in this fashion. I believe the House of Commons has still some use, has still some work to perform, but it ought to be more than the mock right of just passing the outlines of a Bill, just the headlines of the Bill, without any real right of saying how the Bill is to operate and what it is to do.
These new duties may be for the good of the people or not, with that I am not concerned at the moment; what I am concerned with is the democratic character of Parliament. It was one of my differences with my late Labour colleagues that they attempted to force me to sign a certain document and come to an agreement in private to throw over my constituents. I then said to them that they had no right to ask a Member of Parliament to do anything which would mean that he was not throwing open his whole life and his whole record of Parliamentary work for his constituents to see from day to day. In this case we shall have the May Committee advising certain tariffs. Certain Members of Parliament may not want them on account of particular interests in their constituencies, and others may want them. If the constituency does not want them, when the constituents go to their Member and say, "You have put on a tariff which has interfered with our work and with our living," the Member will say, "I did not put it on, it was the May Committee that put it on." Instead of a Member of Parliament voting deliberately in the House, in the full light of day, on a matter which may be one of life or death to his constituency, he will have handed over to another body the duty which he ought boldly to have undertaken himself.
4.30 p.m.
What is now proposed is simply shifting Parliamentary control to private meetings upstairs. I say that it is wrong for Conservatives not to make an attempt of some kind to prevent powers of this
kind being given to a Committee to deal with problems which are very often difficult to decide. Look at the unseemly quarrel which has already taken place as to what is to be on the Free List and what is not. We find people representing Ulster arguing that their goods should be free from tariffs. Hon. Members may be consistent or inconsistent in their attitude on this question, but they have no right to place legislation on the Statute Book delegating to anybody, no matter how great they may be, the power to impose taxation, because that is a responsibility with which Parliament has been entrusted.

Mr. J. JONES: I am almost in the position which is well described in the phrase "I don't know where I are." So far as some of those sitting on these benches are concerned, we have tried to carry out the policy of the party to which we belong. We have never agreed to any committee dominating public policy. We have never voted for that, and we never shall. The Committee which has been appointed to deal with tariffs is totally different from any other committee that has ever been appointed. Certain gentlemen have been appointed at salaries of £10,000, £7,000, and £5,000, and they have power to dominate the policy of the Tariff Committee. That is laying down the principle that they have a right to take salaries without consultation with anybody but themselves. The Government knew before these men were appointed that they were all in favour of tariffs. Every one of them was converted to Tariff Reform as they understood it. Here we have a committee nominated by the Government to dictate to us, and we are allowed 28 days in the second division. This Committee has power to recommend that certain articles of public use shall be placed upon the Free List or that certain other articles shall be placed on the Taxable List. In these circumstances is it not clear that every kind of pressure can be brought to bear to influence the committee in regard to what shall be on the Free List and what shall be on the Taxable List. The result will be that those parties, firms, and interests which have the greatest amount of influence with the Government will get the best end of the stick.
I have been reading a speech made by a member of the Government Warning us that these tariffs will be the beginning and the end of the British Constitution, and will expose us to the danger of the corruption which has prevailed in the United States. The same right hon. Gentleman, also told us that the same influence would form cartels, trusts and syndicates and would destroy the whole system under which Great Britain in the past built up her great commercial position. It is all right for the Home Secretary to say what he likes at Liberal meetings and mothers' meetings called by the National Liberal Association, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to say here what he believes about the tariff policy, because he cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds for ever. Will any hon. Member of this House, in spite of the historical retrospect which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), be prepared to commit himself to the principle that a committee should have power to impose taxation without Parliament having the first say? I would like to ask where there is an instance in the whole history of this Parliament of any committee outside Parliament being given the right to impose taxation. Whatever the Labour party may have done in the last Parliament, at any rate, they did appoint committees of this House, but the Tariff Committee is not a committee of this House; it is a committee of outsiders.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The committee which the Labour Government appointed under the Anomalies Act was not a committee of this House, and in the case of the Tariff Committee we have at least the advantage of knowing who are the members of the committee.

Mr. JONES: That is only a get out, because the hon. Member knows perfectly well that that was a Departmental Committee; consequently, that argument has nothing to do with the point at issue. I am denying the right of any committee to assume the duty of Parliament itself. There is an old historic principle that taxation should not be imposed upon the people without their consent, but we have not the consent of the people to the imposition of the taxes which are being imposed by this committee. Did hon. Members opposite tell the people at the last
election that nearly every kind of foodstuff was going to be taxed?

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Yes.

Mr. JONES: You are living in the back of beyond.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is North Kensington at the back of beyond?

Mr. JONES: No, it is not. The people who do not matter live in Kensington, and they do not care what taxes they place upon poor people because they can afford to pay them, and they always get the benefit when it comes to profiteering. They know on which side their bread is buttered. I travelled over this country fairly well during the last election, and I do not believe there is any Member of this House who stated at the last election that he was going to support a policy of this kind. Hon. Members did not tell the electors that they were going to appoint a committee of three men with large salaries paid for out of the national funds, and that they were going to give them the right to impose taxation. Was that proposal placed before the people? I wish to God it had been, because then the Labour party would not have been a minority party, but they would have had a majority strong enough to carry out their own policy. In the appointment of this Committee we are going back 100 years in the fiscal policy of this country, and, if we are to have taxes upon food and other commodities, let us have a fair and full Debate instead of having this important principle prejudged and decided by people who have no responsibility whatever to the general body of the electors. That is why this Amendment has been moved from the Labour benches, and I hope this House will not surrender its rights by giving the right of imposing taxation to any committee. We claim the right to decide the imposition of this kind of taxation not three weeks after the taxes are imposed, but before they are imposed, because we have the right to say what shall be done and what shall not be done.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I think that some protest ought to be made against the statement of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) to the effect that the political views of this Committee
were known before they were appointed. I should like to point out that one of them, at any rate, is a very distinguished civil servant, and it has always been most honourably recognised in the Civil Service that Members of that Service, in regard to political matters, should be impartial. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Member, in a case of this kind, was entitled to make such a statement with regard to the political views of the Committee.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I hope it will not be taken that I was trying to make individual distinctions. [Interruption.] Mr. (Speaker will tell me when I am out of Order. It is rather peculiar, however, that all your great civil servants, as soon as they leave their positions, become Tory candidates.

Sir G. GILLETT: I do not think that the hon. Member has in any way met the objection that I raise to his statement, which seemed to me to be grossly unfair, in reference to a gentleman who has held a distinguished position in the Board of Trade. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), I naturally understand that he would be only too pleased that this policy should be followed, as it would give him far greater opportunities for carrying on a campaign against the tariffs to which he personally objects, and, therefore, I do not know that one need attach too great importance to the line of action that he has taken this afternoon. It is obvious that, if the Government had to come here and recommend that about a dozen of these items should be taken off the list, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green would have a magnificent time for some five, six or seven of the days allotted to Government business in this House. Therefore, while I regret that I should seem to be taking away that opportunity from the hon. Member, I confess that my views on this matter are not greatly affected by his speech.
The speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) interested me very much, and I confess that it appealed to me in one way, not that I agree with him, but because it rather intensifies the views that I hold in support of the action
proposed by the Government. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member that he really felt that this proposal indicated a change of policy in regard to Parliamentary procedure, and, if his facts are correct, the inference would seem to be that not only this Government, but the previous Government, have been trying, perhaps unconsciously, to feel out a way in which they could lighten the business that is falling upon Parliament. We often hear complaints from all quarters that our procedure is cumbersome and difficult, and that an enormous amount of time is wasted over various matters, and I cannot help thinking that Ministers, both in this Government and in the last Government, have been attempting to meet this criticism by making the very proposals to which the hon. Member for Gorbals objects.
It has been stated that we are handing over powers to this Committee, but I should like to point out that, technically at any rate, that is not correct, because it is on the recommendation of this Committee that certain action is taken by the Treasury, and I suppose I am correct in saying that the Treasury really means the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, represents the Government. It may be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot act without the recommendation of the Committee, but, on the other hand, the recommendation of the Committee would be quite futile unless it had the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in other words, of the Government which is supported in this House. In view of that fact, it seems to me that this is by far the most effective procedure that could be brought forward, and that, if all the various details of the tariff are to be discussed over and over again in this House for days, it would simply offer a delightful opportunity to those who oppose it. Looking at the matter, however, purely from the point of view of the management of this House, from the executive standpoint, and ignoring whether one supports the policy or opposes it, I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the Government is the very soundest and best that they could make in the circumstances.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: As one who was returned to support the National
Government, I must confess that the proposal of the Government with which this Amendment deals fills me with genuine concern. I do not desire to read into it anything that it is not meant to convey, but it seems to me to be a proposal to confer upon the Advisory Committee powers which were not in the minds of many of us in the House who supported the appointers of this Committee. The question of the various classes of goods which were to be included in the list was very fully debated in the House, and the premature alteration of the list which this proposal seems to suggest conveys the idea to my mind that the Government are yielding to pressure for the removal from the list of certain imports, which many of the supporters of the Government in the House will feel bound to resist. I do not desire to refer specifically to any one commodity, but the suggestion that the free list may be interfered with at an early date is, to me and to many others, very unsettling.
It is, above all things, essential that the Government should convey to the country the impression of stability, and the feeling that their fiscal decisions are neither lightly reached nor lightly thrown on one side. A great deal has already been done by the Government to restore confidence among the commercial classes in the country, but that confidence will be rapidly forfeited unless there is reasonable security that the policy of the Government, definitely arrived at after full discussion, will not be changed until a full and patient trial has been made. We have already handed over to the Tariff Advisory Committee very wide powers, and I cannot say too much in praise of the distinguished gentlemen who are in charge of the affairs of that committee, but many of us are jealous of the further delegation of Government responsibility to an outside body. I quite agree that from many points of view it is a good thing to have fiscal powers in the hands of an outside body, and so to avoid all the undue pressure which various interests sometimes manifest in the Lobby of the House, but I am quite satisfied personally that any interference with the Free List at the present moment may not only have a prejudicial effect upon the authority of the House of Commons, but may fundamentally and adversely affect
the real commercial interests of the country itself.

Mr. COCKS: This is an amazing proposal, and, in some ways, it is almost an insolent proposal. It is a proposal to take away the power of the purse from this Chamber, and to take away from the country the great principle that there should be no taxation without representation. An hour or so ago we were discussing in this House the question of the Oath of Allegiance. It seems to me that Members of this House who are supporting the Government have taken a new oath of allegiance to Sir George May, but I, for one, am not willing to pay homage to the High Priest of Mammon, nor to bow my knee in the house of the Prudential Insurance Company.
Only seven weeks ago the Import Duties Act received the sanction of the House of Commons and of the Crown; it was only on the 29th February that it was put upon the Statute Book. Seven weeks have elapsed, and we are now debating a proposal to repeal the first Schedule to the Act. That first Schedule was discussed at some length in this House. For reasons of time, it was not discussed at such great length as we should have liked, but it was discussed, and, as the result of those discussions, certain articles were placed on the free list—wheat, meat, raw cotton and so on. It was freely stated at the time that this free list was the result of a compromise or bargain with certain Members of the Liberal party in the Cabinet. As the Home Secretary is now in his place, I would like to know whether that is the case, and, if so, whether that contract, or compact, has been broken by the proposal which has now been put before the House by the Government. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary, perhaps later on in the course of this discussion, could reply to us on that point; or, if he would like to answer now, perhaps he will do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] There are no signs or sounds at all from. the ranks of Tuscany.
Directly, however, wheat and meat were placed on the free list, there arose a great agitation outside this House, and this is another point that I desire to bring before the notice of the House. An agitation arose to tax wheat and meat. A certain newspaper proprietor launched a great
attack on the Government, and, in particular, on the Lord President of the Council, for not agreeing to tax wheat and meat, and as a sequel we have this proposal, which is a symbol of civil war, almost treachery, in the Government. It looks as though the Treasury are allying themselves with Stornoway House in an attack upon the Privy Council and the House of Commons, and, for myself, in a case like that, I cannot refrain from trying to break a lance in defence of the great cause of Bewdley against Beaver-brook. If this Resolution be carried, the Government will be given the power to impose food taxes by a subterfuge, and to sweep away our constitutional principles by administrative decree. It was the imposition of Ship Money that led directly to Naseby and to a certain scaffold in Whitehall; and another direct result of it was the removal of the symbol of our power from that Table. To-day, no one draws the sword in defence of constitutional principles. But it may be that we shall lose our powers, not by any sudden irruption of Sir George May and his myrmidons into this House, but by the gradual whittling away of our privileges, by the gradual surrender of our rights, by the slow and deadening descent of this House into impotence and futility. For these reasons we support this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: I understand that the Question which is now before the House is one of those on which Members of the Government, and, therefore, Liberal supporters of the Government, have freedom to differ, and I propose to exercise the right to differ as emphatically as I can, because it seems to me that the proposal which is now before the House is absolutely indefensible. If, at the time of the General Election, the Prime Minister or any of the leaders of any of the parties had said that a dictatorship of this kind was going to be in operation within six months, it would not have been believed. To my mind, it is utterly inconsistent with the policy laid before the country at the time of the General Election. There may be very good arguments in favour of tariffs on all sorts of articles, but those arguments ought to be heard by the House of Commons, and decided by the House of Commons, and not by three gentlemen who to the best of their
ability are carrying out their own ideas. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on several occasions at Question Time whether any special instructions or guidance had been given to this Tariff Committee as to the way in which they should exercise their functions, and he has prided himself on saying that nothing whatever has been said to them, that they are given a free hand, that they have merely to look at the terms of the Act under which the committee was appointed. No doubt they are carrying out their job to the best of their ability, but it means that they simply have to exercise their own judgment, and, when men have to exercise their own judgment, it may be entirely different from the views of Members of the House of Commons.
5.0 p.m.
It is really astounding that a proposal of this kind, which is contrary to the historic constitutional practices of this House, should be brought before the House at the present time. Only a few days ago a very good precedent was set by the Government as to the way to treat the Free List. One of the articles on the Free List is tea, and the Government decided that tea ought to be taken out of the Free List and have a tax placed upon it. Therefore, they very properly placed it in the annual Budget, so that the amplest opportunity might be available for discussing it and deciding whether or not a duty should be imposed. I venture to say that, if it is decided in future that it is desirable to put a tax on some of these other articles, such as wheat or meat, the Government ought to bring their proposal before the House, so that it may be discussed in the ordinary way, and not simply to issue a fiat. We may learn one morning in the newspapers that all the meat and wheat coming into the country is to be taxed. The constitutional practice of this country, of course, has been that the Lords cannot initiate any taxation. It is interesting to note the views of the present Minister of Health, as stated in a very admirable book on finance that he has written. He says:
The Commons have the sole right of initiative.
My right hon. Friend will have to bring out a fresh edition of his book, for it will be entirely out of date if this Resolution is passed. He also says:
They have the sole right of deciding the manner and the measure of taxation.
That will not be true any longer. I desire to make a most emphatic protest against a new constitutional procedure which seems to me to be indefensible, to be contrary to the programme laid before the country at the General Election, and to set up nothing less than a tariff dictatorship uncontrolled by the House of Commons.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): In the first place, it seems to me that the memory of hon. Members who have delivered these philippics against the proposals of the Government must be extraordinarily short. The general procedure against which they are inveighing is that of the Treasury making an order upon the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, and the provision that the order is to be null and void unless confirmed by a Resolution of this House within 28 days. That procedure has been sanctioned already by an overwhelming majority in this House. Is the extension proposed either novel or unjustifiable? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who has shown so little interest in the dictatorship that, having made his speech, he has retired from the Chamber, was utterly ignorant of the course of debates which foreshadowed most clearly the very course which the Government are now adopting. On the Second Rea3ing of the Import Duties Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I think it is worth considering whether we should not also extend the discretion of the Committee so as to make it possible not only to put things into the free list but to take things out of the free list."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1599, Vol. 261.]
When the Bill got into Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on the Paper Amendments which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled out of order on a purely technical point and nothing more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:
If you still maintain your view, that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned, because I can deal with it in the Finance Bill at a later stage."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1932: col. 1921, Vol. 261.]

Sir P. HARRIS: Was not that an attempt by the Chairman to protect the rights of this House?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is a constitutional expert and I am surprised that he should make that statement. A ruling by the Chairman of Ways and Means can refer to nothing but the technical rules of this House. But let me pursue the question whether this was or was not brought before the House when the Import Duties Bill was being considered. Not merely was it brought before the House, but there was a specific pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this proposal would be incorporated in the Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend said:
It is now proposed that the Advisory Committee should have power ultimately to recommend that articles should be taken out of the list as well as that articles should be put into it.
My right hon. Friend also said:
As the Committee is aware it has not been possible for me, under the Rules of the House, to move the necessary Amendment, on this occasion, but I hope to do it by means of an Amendment to the Act in the Finance Bill, which will come before the House at a later stage. We are, therefore, proceeding on the assumption that ultimately the Committee will be clothed with the powers to recommend not only that imports should be put on the free list, but also that they should be taken out.
He went further and said:
Having that additional elasticity in the provisions of this Measure, it is possible for us to contemplate putting into the free list now articles that perhaps we should never have ventured to put in if we knew that, if once put in, they could never have been taken out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; cols. 325 and 326, Vol. 262.]
My right hon. Friend finally stated, on the Third Reading of the Bill:
The fact that the Committee will have the task of deciding to recommend, not merely additions to the free list, but also subtractions from the free list, has enabled us to make very considerable additions to the articles which will come in free of duty." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1932; col. 709, Vol. 262.]
So that it not merely was clearly laid before the House, not merely was the pledge clearly given, but it did permit greater elasticity in adding tariffs and subtracting tariffs which otherwise the Import Duties Bill would not have given. That seems to me to dispose entirely of the argument that this procedure was not brought before the House at an earlier stage. I have here speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who stated
specifically that they voted for the final stages of the Import Duties Bill on these pledges and only on these pledges which were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer openly and freely. That disposes, firstly, of the suggestion that there is anything novel about the procedure, and, secondly, the suggestion that this is a procedure which the Government are not entitled to adopt in view of the very recent passing of the Import Duties Bill.
I have the greatest sympathy with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Wallace), who said that fiscal decisions once taken should not be lightly thrown aside, but I have proved to him by these quotations that this procedure was sanctioned by this House by great majorities. The hon. Member for Broxtowe Division (Mr. Cocks) introduced his usual argument about King Charles's head. Both he and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) introduced historical precedent, neither of them quite happily. It was suggested that Magna Charta somehow or other supported his argument. I have yet to hear that the imposition of Customs duties was disputed at the time of Magna Charta. It was at that time the prerogative of the Executive, and it remained the prerogative of the Executive for centuries, and was not challenged until hundreds of years later. The Debate to-day has brought out one highly interesting and novel fact. It has brought the affirmation by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that he is a supporter of the Government. It is an entirely novel fact, but we welcome it.

Mr. MANDER: What ground has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that?

Major ELLIOT: The ground of the Division lists on many occasions.

Mr. MANDER: My position with regard to voting is exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Major ELLIOT: I do not propose to go into the question further. I do not think the Division list of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton will bear comparison in every respect with the Division lists of other right hon. and hon. Mem-
bers who were also returned to this House as Liberal Members and supporters of the Government.

Mr. MANDER: But it is not right.

Major ELLIOT: I have shown that the proposal to bring these powers before Parliament was sanctioned and that it is a proposal which the Government are justified in making. The arguments used against it are, first of all, arguments against the whole general principle of having a Tariff Commission at all. That is a case which has been decided by the House. The argument of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was that the members of the Tariff Commission were picked for their well-known tariffist views. I wish he were in his place. Having made his speech against the dictatorship of the Tariff Commission he also has found it convenient to depart to another part of the Building. Had he been present I would have pointed out to him that one of the gentlemen appointed to this Commission was a Professor of Economics in the University of Manchester, and although the hon. Member for Silvertown may think that people are chosen as Professors of Economics in the University of Manchester because of their strong and vehement support of tariff reform, that is not a view which will find any support in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have sat for that City. Sir George May was a free trader.
In fact, the most vehement protests were made against the personnel on this committee on the ground that it was loading the dice on the tariff issue. It was said that the Commissioners would take a prejudiced and Free Trade and almost an "Ichornshavian" view of the situation. But the main argument to-day was that of the hon. Member for Gorbals Mr. Buchanan), who, like other speakers, having made his protest against the dictatorship, has left the House. He brought up what seemed to me the only valid argument against this proposal, and that was that it was a withdrawal from Parliament of the control over finance and administration which the House should properly exercise. Within the sweep of this House there comes now an expenditure of nearly £1,000,000,000.
The House is no longer capable of pursuing the details of that great responsibility, with the meticulous investigation
that would be possible were it merely responsible for a few millions or even a few hundred millions. As this House heaps upon itself greater and greater power— no one demands more strongly than members of the Liberal and Labour parties that these greater responsibilities should be taken—in matters affecting the fortunes of the people, it finds itself forced more and more to allocate to others the immediate administration of those responsibilities. It is a dilemma from which there is no escape and one which has been forced increasingly upon the House in recent years by the enormous weight of the responsibility which the House has 'assumed. If we are to suppose that the House of Commons is still to debate individual cases with the closeness with which it used to do, you will get the greatest evil of all, a paralysis of the Executive, the greatest disaster that could ever fall upon the country. This is a way by which it is possible for the Executive to maintain what is ultimately necessary, namely, the direction of affairs and the consideration of broad lines of policy.
The hon. Member for Gorbals was saying that this House merely laid down broad, general lines of policy and that these were filled in afterwards by subordinate bodies of one sort or another. I was arguing that, under the present conditions of congestion, to 'which every Act passed by this House makes an addition, that type of procedure is inevitable. While I sympathise with the hon. Member in his objection to the decisions that these subordinate bodies may sometimes come to, I say that those who claim the nationalisation of industry and the control of it by a political organisation, namely, this House of Commons, cannot complain if in very self defence the body which has this great responsibility sets up powerful expert committees to fill in details of policy after they have been decided in broad general outline by the Executive of the day and supported by votes in the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals delivered the only reasoned attack upon the principle of the Resolution and the principle of import duties and upon the Tariff Commission as a whole. These are inevitable, and I ask the House to support us in this extension, which this House has pledged itself to accept in its acceptance of the Bill for,
without it, we should find that we were stultifying ourselves by first setting up a Commission and entrusting two-thirds of the national income to it and then saying, for some reason or other, that one particular set of imports had to be withdrawn from its purview altogether.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The last part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be of great use in future Parliaments, and we shall, no doubt, be quoting it when we hope he will be on this side of the House protesting vehemently against the House handing over its powers to a national committee and not being allowed to say which industry shall be controlled by the State and which shall not. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with the National Government that that type of delegation of power nowadays is necessary, but, when one delegates powers, one has to lay down the lines upon which they are to be exercised, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the vast difference between this type of delegation of powers and any that there has been before is shown by the first report of the committee, where they show how they have had to seek around for some sort of principle for the imposition of these duties. Here, again, is a proposal to -withdraw from the House not only the detailed working out of a broad scheme, but the settlement of the principle of the working out of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that those are two vastly different matters.
The part of his speech in which he was forced to come down to what I may call the vulgar argument as to whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) or the Home Secretary had voted most against the Government, seemed to me to show the most unfortunate position in which the Cabinet and the Government are in this matter. I want to ask the Home Secretary to tell me—I challenge him to dispute this proposition—whether it is not a fact, as I assert, that this Free List was part of the arrangement come to in the Cabinet as regards his continuance there and the agreement by which some Members of the Cabinet were allowed to vote against the proposal. I assert that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman sits there and does not deny it, and therefore, one must assume that it was so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that it is a long recognised custom in the House, although it has been broken on some occasions, that proceedings in the Cabinet are confidential and not to be divulged.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have been officially informed by the Government that there was an agreement to differ in the Cabinet upon this specific point. Am I not in order in referring to that agreement to differ?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of order in what he said until he chose to assume, and ask the House to assume, certain results from the fact that a Member of the Cabinet did not reply to him. It was that which called for my intervention.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman is in the House and, if he wishes to make a statement to say that he cannot reply, is he not at liberty to do so?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand what I have said. He would be misleading the House if he asked the House to assume anything because a Cabinet Minister did not reply to such a challenge.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): That was the reason I had in my mind in not responding to the hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I imagine the House can judge whether I intended to mislead them or not in the statement that I made. There are great blocks of foodstuffs and raw material which appear in the First Schedule, the merits of which were argued out. Let me take the case of meat. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the reason why meat must -remain in the Schedule and could not be

taken out of it. Those matters were fully discussed, and it is not right, in view of that fact, that now power should be given to the Committee to recommend that things should be taken out of the Free List, because I do not think the House can have realised when the Bill was going through what we tried to impress upon it, the position as regards the confirmation of those Orders. One of them has now been made. It covers some hundreds of articles. Anyone who desires to vote on that Order has either to vote for all or for none. There is no power in the House to amend the Order at all. It has either to be approved or disapproved, and the result is that it is impossible, and a waste of time, to discuss the merits of the particular articles that appear in the Order and that, as we said in the Debates on the Bill, shows the futility of the alleged control by the House if this procedure is adopted. It may be that one of these articles that now appear in the Schedule may be taken out, while the vast number of the other articles are retained. In that event, it will be impossible for Members to express their opinion upon the actual taking out of the Schedule of the particular substance. We suggest that, in those circumstances, it is far better to do what the Committee have themselves said is desirable to be done, that is, to leave it for at least 12 months a certainty so far as the various taxes that have been imposed are concerned, and exactly the same arguments apply to the certainty of the Free List in the First Schedule We suggest, therefore, that this power is unnecessary this year, at any rate Let the scheme have its trial, let the Schedule operate for a year, and next year, if the right hon. Gentleman wants it, he can bring forward a Motion of this sort and see what reception he will get.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes 65.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[5.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Atkinson, Cyril
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Albery, Irving James
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blindell, James


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Borodale, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.
Balniel, Lord
Bossom, A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boulton, W. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goidie, Noel B.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Bower, Lieut..Com. Robert Tatton
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chisw'k)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Graves, Morjorle
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shephard


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moss, Captain H. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Munro, Patrick


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harbord, Arthur
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hartington, Marquess of
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland. George A.
North, Captain Edward T.


Carver, Major William H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nunn, William


Castle Stewart, Earl
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ormiston, Thomas


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Patrick, Colin M.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles U.


Christle, James Archibald
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Clarke, Frank
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Petherick, M.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hortbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Potter, John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Colville, John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Conant, R. J. E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Purbrick, R.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Cooke, Douglas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)


Copeland, Ida
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, E.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jamieson, Douglas
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Jennings, Roland
Ray, Sir William


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, Lawrence
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Davison, Sir William Henry
Knebworth, Viscount
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Law, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Dickie, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Ross, Ronald D.


Doran, Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Duckworth, George A. V.
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Duncan, James A. L, (Kensington, N.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Eady, George H.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salt, Edward W.


Eales, John Frederick
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Scone, Lord


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Selley, Harry R.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elmley, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Emmott, Charles E, G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Major Alan
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Soper, Richard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stevenson, James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stones, James


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Goff, Sir Park
Milne, Charles
Strauss, Edward A.




Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Templeton, William P.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Alfred R.


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, Walter James


Thompson, Luke
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Weymouth, Viscount



Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Train, John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Major George Davies and




Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Curry, A. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Mabane, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McGovern, John
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey Ie M.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Graham.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no recommendation or order in pursuance of this paragraph shall apply to wheat in grain or meat as defined in the said Schedule.
I will relieve the House by saying that the point here will not raise any question of the conscience of the Home Secretary, because it is introduced especially for the benefit of another group of Liberals who were imported into the Government without any countervailing duty at all, and it is incidentally for the benefit of the President of the Board of Trade. It is curious that twice in a week we should try to relieve the President of the Board of Trade from some penalties. On the first occasion we relieved him from liability to pecuniary pains and penalties incurred for sitting in the House when he was not entitled to do so. I am now dealing with a more subtle matter, namely, the pains and penalties of a guilty conscience. The President of the Board of Trade stated specifically in a Debate in the House on the 10th February exactly the line of demarcation of his conscience as compared with that of the Home Secretary. It is very important to get the matter clear, because there are a
number of tender consciences in these matters. Some go the whole of the way and some only part of the way. Some go the whole hog, some on wheat, some on meat, and some on tomatoes, bacon and so forth. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), speaking in the House, quoted from a speech of the President of the Board of Trade, delivered at St. Ives, in which the right hon. Gentleman said:
While he" (the President of the Board of Trade) "would not be a party to permanent tariffs being imposed at the present time, he was prepared to take such steps as were necessary to preserve our national balance. 'I would not' he added, 'be in favour of any import duty on food'.
The President of the Board of Trade rose and said:
I specified meat and wheat, and I still adhere to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1932; col. 905, Vol. 261.]
This is the point where the Amendment becomes extremely apposite. We do not want the right hon. Gentleman in any way to offend his meat and wheat consciences. Perhaps it is rather a welcome proceeding to try and retain wheat and meat on the Free List, because other Liberal Members' consciences have been appeased
already on the subject by calling in a quota. Perhaps they may call wheat by some other name in a short time. I do not know how they will call bacon and cheese, but they will be brought in somehow. There is all the difference between taxation and a quota. The one is the direct method of transferring money from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of the rich and the other is the indirect method. Here we have the very clear point of whether we must safeguard the President of the Board of Trade in order to enable him to retain his position in the Cabinet and retain his conscience. Therefore, I am moving that the recommendation should not apply to those particularly awkward points of wheat in. grain or meat.
I come to the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should not like him to yield in any way to the pressure of his own back benches. He had. a very clear view on the subject of meat only on the 23rd February. Hon. Members will remember that he was much pressed to remove meat from the Free List. Listening to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one would have thought that this was not a matter of principle at all, and that it was only a matter as to whether there should be a little further inquiry, of finding ways and means and so forth. It is interesting to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually said upon this matter. First of all, he said he begged his hon. Friend to believe that in this matter it was not a question of difference of opinion between the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues. That is very gratifying, because it leaves the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the meat and wheat position. He continued:
The view which is held by the whole Government is that, in the position in which we stand to-day, when we are off the Gold Standard, I will not say the question of food taxes, but the question of the cost of living, is not a bogey at all, but is something which has to be very carefully studied and watched, because, if the cost of living were to rise beyond what I have called the danger point, there might be consequences in what is generally known as a vicious spiral—a rise in wages followed by further rises in costs, and so on—which would lead to an uncontrolled depreciation in the currency, and that is a contingency which I think none of us could possibly contemplate with equanimity.
The right hon. Gentleman does not share the optimistic views of some of his friends behind him, that all those things are paid by the foreigner. He did think of the days of the cost of living rising. He also rather differed from some hon. Members, because he was not under any delusion that in some wonderful way when you put on those tariffs the cost of living did not rise, for a little further down he said:
I took occasion, about a week ago, to point out to the House that at the present time the cost of living was artificially low— that in the natural course of events one would have to expect that the cost of living would rise.
But he had in mind his back-benchers, so he said:
That is a question which one has to keep in mind in considering any possible addition to the cost of living by any action that we might take. I do not want anything that I say on this Amendment to be taken as a pledge that this Government will never in any circumstances be a party to the imposition of a tax on meat. I do not make any such statement. What I do say is that in present circumstances, and having, in particular, the question of the cost of living very much in our minds, we do not consider that this is a time when it would be prudent or wise to put a tax upon the import of meat into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; cols. 330–31. Vol. 262.]
That was only on the 23rd February. The point is to try and give to this committee of three power to tax anything they like and to remove it from the Free List. What the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues will have to tell us about meat and wheat and the conscience question, I do not know. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not deal so much with the higher plane. He brings before the House practical matters. I would ask him what are the circumstances that make the great difference between February and the present time. Perhaps he will tell us whether the cost of living is still artificially low, or whether it is naturally low, or whether by these duties he has managed to make it low. We shall want to know whether the Government are still anxious about prices, about the vicious spiral, about the uncontrolled depression in the currency. We have moved a great deal towards expansion and reflation, and perhaps they are not now so easy about that as they were then. Will he assure us that there is no danger
to-day about the vicious spiral, no danger about the uncontrolled depression in the currency? If so, we shall know that the crisis has passed, and perhaps the House will be able to return to ordinary matters of legislation. I make this point because I shall want to know about it in connection with a later Amendment.
The broad point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Debates on the Import Duties Act found some of his supporters were becoming restless. There were two lots who were getting restless, some Liberals and some Conservatives, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it advisable to be on the side of the battalions. Having settled the Free List he then threw the whole thing over and said: "Very well, I have been beaten"—he was beaten, as others are beaten—"by the Ruling of the Chair," and as he could not work it into his Bill he said that he would bring it up in the Finance Bill. He might have brought it in then, But that does not vitiate his arguments in regard to the cost of living and the cost of wheat and meat. Perhaps the Financial Secretary, if he is going to reply, will tell us what are the reasons, if there are reasons, that prevent him from accepting this Amendment. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade for the first time is going to exercise the freedom accorded to Members of the Cabinet and support our Amendment, on the ground that it is necessary for the satisfaction of his conscience.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member who has just spoken occupied a large part of his speech in examining the consciences of the Members of the Government. I belong to the ordinary class of individuals who find it quite difficult enough to keep one's own conscience clear. I shall not follow, as I might follow, the hon. Member in criticism of the actions of himself and his friends. I would say that on the question of the protection of agriculture, involving as it does in my judgment the taxation of meat, my own conscience is clear. I voted for the removal of meat from the Free List and I gave my reasons for my vote. I do not propose to argue the whole question, but it is somewhat remarkable that in the speech to which we have just listened there was nothing to show any sort of realisation of the position that agriculture is in to-day and of
the urgent necessity, if we want to save agriculture, for doing something.
I regard Protection as incomplete if it leaves out agriculture. I do not think that you can get a balanced trade unless you include the agricultural population. The hon. Member and his friends are very fond of saying how much they wish to help the farmer, but whenever the occasion arises they always vote against his interests. I do not know what action the Government will take on the Amendment, but I hope they will leave the question open. We have in front of us the Ottawa Conference and also the home position, and for both these reasons I do most sincerely hope that the Government will not prejudge the question. I do not expect a decision or a pronouncement now, but I do ask that the matter should be left for future decision, and in so doing I am expressing what I believe will be the future trend of events. I do not believe that any Government that seeks to work a protective system will be able to leave out agriculture. I do not think that you can leave it out.
I do not go too far when I say that at the present time the position of agriculture is one of the most important questions before us. I think we are in great danger of still further unbalancing our system and that we can only restore the balance by the protection of agriculture. I am convinced that the country is in favour of that. A great factor of the last election was the fact that for the first time in my lifetime the urban population voted in favour of agricultural protection. Occasions come and occasions go and unless we use them when they are here they are lost for ever. That is why I regretted so much that a decision was not taken on the last occasion on the lines that I and my friends wanted it to be taken, in the Debate that took place. We still hope, and we are encouraged by the fact that we believe we are on right lines. All that we ask is that the question shall not be prejudged.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot find any fault with those hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies and stand up in the interests of the people they represent. It is my business and my duty to stand up for the people I represent
and who get their livelihood largely at the docks. Seventy-five per cent. of the people I represent are men who get their living in and around the docks in the import and export trades? Two of the most important sections of the transport trade in my constituency are the importations of wheat and meat. I know that argument can toe raised about Empire imports in both cases, but we have to look at the other side of the picture. We have to remember that we have customers who buy things from us in payment for the things that they send to us. There is the Argentine Republic, Brazil and other countries, who export to us goods that we have not been able to produce in sufficient quantities to satisfy our own needs. When we talk about reciprocal trade relationship we have to weigh up the balance. At the Albert, Victoria and the King George Docks, three of the largest docks in London, and London is not an unimportant port, there are thousands of men who directly depend for their livelihood and the livelihood of their families upon the importation of the things that are mentioned in this particular Amendment, meat and wheat. These men are about the best paid men in the port of London and they look with considerable suspicion upon the possibility that their means of employment may be restricted by duties upon imports. They do not ask where a thing comes from, but they ask, "What are we going to get for unloading the ship, and for loading the goods into the vans and lorries to take them to the various markets?"
We have to weigh up the balance. It may be very important to produce our own foodstuffs, but the question is, are we able in existing circumstances to do what other countries are able to do? A large proportion of our meat comes from the Argentine. Can we supply the deficiency without making our people pay an extra price for the things they want? Will English home-produced meat be sold to the poor at a price they can afford to pay? There are imports from New Zealand and Australia, but that will not mean any benefit to the people if those imports are absolutely protected against competition. Hon. Members opposite profess to believe in the principle of competition. Have they surrendered it? Do they believe in
competition for everybody else except themselves? I have heard Debates in this House in which certain people have asked for protection for the things that they sell, but they want free trade for the things that they buy. It is a case of heads they win and tails we lose, every time.
We say that meat and wheat are two essential foodstuffs for our people. I should like to know whether any hon. Members opposite told their constituents at the last General Election, which was catastrophic from our point of view, that they would work for the taxation of meat and wheat. I do not believe that there are half a dozen Members who could say that.

Major HILLS: I certainly said that I supported food taxes.

Mr. JONES: Food taxes.

Major HILLS: Meat is food.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. JONES: When you are engaged in a particular industry, naturally you will vote for its protection. Those who are not engaged in the production of foodstuffs are interested in getting food at the lowest possible price. Man for man the agricultural worker, the meat producer in the Argentine and the wheat producer in other parts of Europe, is better paid than the worker in this country. I stand for my own people. They get their living by the importation of foodstuffs, by handling meat and wheat. Surely I am not wrong in asking the House of Commons to realise their position. These men are amongst the best paid workers in their trade. Corn porters are a special body of men in the docks of London, and very often they have to go down to Tilbury. They are registered for the purpose of doing this kind of work, and they are rather afraid as to what is going to happen. They have approached me and asked what it means. I said: "I do not know, because the people responsible have not yet explained it, and you cannot expect me to know if all the great experts have not yet expressed themselves." The Government cannot take these commodities off the Free List without meaning to put a tax upon them, and that means an increased burden on the men engaged in the unloading of these commodities and upon the people who
have to buy them. These people do not buy in large quantities. They buy in small quantities, and the smaller the quantity the bigger the price they pay.
Taxes are to be put upon these commodities for the first time for many years. The Home Secretary delivered a speech last night in which he told us that he is against food taxes. That is very nice; but what is the good of it when he is linked up with the forty thieves? What is the good of him telling us that he is against this tax and that tax and yet remains cheek by jowl with his present associates, because the interests of the nation demand that he should be there. The nation can do without him, and his business. He is not indispensable to the Government of this country. I can do his job as well, but I would not be found in that gang for twice the salary. Liberal Members opposite are associated with a party which is going to do all the things they do not want to do. I cannot understand that kind of politics, but when it happens, the Free Traders opposite, the great panjandrums, try to excuse themselves and apologise and say that there are other great issues at stake quite apart from Free Trade and Protection. The only thing that has divided the Liberal party from the Conservative party for the last 50 years has been Protection. In every other field of politics they are as Tory as the Tories—the general strike proved it. Everything that has happened has proved it.

Mr. McGOVERN: Who imposed the means test?

Mr. JONES: I have no means, so there can be no test. You cannot put all your principles away without having to pay the penalty. Liberal Members opposite who joined the Government at the last election are now apologising and trying to explain why they have lost their souls. By this Amendment we ask that wheat and meat shall be excluded from taxation. There is not a single Member opposite who said that he was in favour of taxing wheat and meat at the last election; but by backstair methods it is proposed to introduce them now. You appoint this triumvirate, three people whom nobody knows. Who are these people who are to say what these taxes shall be? An hon. Member who used
to be a comrade chided me because I said something about them personally. I say nothing about them personally. They are perfectly honest as far as I know, and I do not think the Prime Minister would have appointed them to the position if he did not think they were honest. These men are going to make a report on wheat and meat. Certain influences will be brought to bear. We have heard an inkling that agriculture is going to get on the job. Farmers will agree, landlords will agree, and I suppose some labourers will agree, and when they have all agreed it comes as a matter of course a recommendation to this Conservative Government. This a National Government! It is all my eye and Betty Martin. It is a Conservative Government, and it will accept the recommendation of this triumvirate, faith, hope and charity.
Protection for agriculture means increased prices for the industrial workers of the country, and the poorest people will have to pay the biggest tax. This issue was never nut before the people at the election. How many hon. Members supported this method of taxation? How many supported a tax upon wheat? As we are also to have a tax upon bread, we shall have two taxes on bread by the time the Government have finished with it: and all in the interests of agriculture. Important as agriculture is, and I want to see it developed, I am not going out of my way to put money into the pockets of landlords and farmers. I want to see agriculture properly organised. I want to see the land the property of the nation and not the property of people who only know the land when they hunt over it or take rents from it.
I hope that the Amendment will be carried. I know that it will not; but hope springs eternal in the human breast. The Government may go on in their policy, but there will come a time when its accumulative effect will mean that the workers will say the time has come to say "Tip it!" and the Government will get its answer at the next General Election. There will be such a revolt that the last election will be but a passing episode in the history of Great Britain. Those who vote for the taxation of food will have to face a serious reckoning. Some hon. Members said that they were not in favour of food taxes. I am not
prepared to say that they mean now what they said at the last election. This National Government has now become a national ramp. It was not a general election which we went through last autumn, it was a general confidence trick played upon the people of the country; and now we are getting the results. We hope that some hon. Members in this House will now be honest enough to say that they really meant what they said at the last election, when they declared that they were not going to vote in favour of food taxes.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I hope the Government will consider the Amendment. It does not involve any departure from any Conservative principle. I agree that the question of putting taxes on meat and grain did not enter into the issue at the last election and if the Government accept the Amendment it merely means that up to a point they subscribe to the general principle that the right to impose taxation on wheat and meat should come before the consideration of this House. For so important a departure as that to be passed on the recommendation of an advisory committee, no matter how distinguished its members may be, is derogatory to the dignity of this House and takes away the inherent right of every hon. Member to express his views. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that he stood as a taxer of food. I stood and was returned as a Free Trader. Many hon. Members were returned on the ground that it was an experiment, but the idea that taxes should be imposed on wheat and meat was never before the country at the last General Election.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the hon. Member whether his leader the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) did not broadcast throughout the country his opinion that the result of the election must mean that the Conservative party would be in favour of food taxes?

Mr. MASON: That showed the shrewdness and prescience of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It showed that he judged correctly that if we had a majority of Conservative Members we should get this. But I think I am stating the case truly and impartially when I say that while
the right hon. and gallant Member stood as a Protectionist and I as a Free Trader, that the pronouncements of the present Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council prove that while tariffs would be considered, the matter was one of experiment. Do hon. Members honestly and sincerely believe that a proposal to tax wheat and meat was put before the country at the last election? Of course, they know that that question was never put before the electorate. I am sure that in their innermost souls hon. Members realise that what I have said is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In the main what I said is the case and I ask any hon. Member, can he give evidence to the House that the very important question of putting duties upon grain or meat was before the country at the election? I am not arguing now as to the merits of putting on such duties. I appreciate the arguments and contentions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) when he asks that agriculture should be included. He is perfectly entitled to argue that question but I ask him to be fair to this House and to give the House an opportunity of considering such an important subject.

Major HILLS: That is all I want. I want the opportunity.

Mr. MASON: I am pleading for the opportunity, in supporting this Amendment.

Major HILLS: No, the hon. Member is shutting it out.

Mr. MASON: All that the Amendment calls for is the exclusion of this small committee from the power to decide such a matter. We desire, and I am sure many hon. Members desire, an opportunity to exercise the ancient right of the House of Commons to decide this important problem. It is true that certain procedure is proposed whereby after this taxation has become the law of the land, when this Advisory Committee has advised, the matter may come before the House to be confirmed or annulled within 28 days. But it is the supreme right of the House to decide this most important question. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to argue it, and he would have an opportunity of arguing it if this Amendment were
accepted. It would be within his right and the right of the Government or any Government, to bring before the House the question of whether we should put a duty on wheat or meat, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could argue for or against such a proposal. This is a free assembly and I ask hon. Members who do not agree with us on the fiscal question, to support us on the main question of the right of the House of Commons to decide these matters.
I hope that hon. Members will see the danger of handing over such immense power to an Advisory Committee. The day may come when other parties will be in power and when they will regret having handed away this great privilege of the House of Commons. I do not lay claim to any monopoly of virtue in my own party, nor do I believe that such a monopoly is enjoyed by the Labour party or the Conservative party. All parties go wrong, but if we retain in this House a great democratic assembly, which is the mirror of the country at the time of its election, at least we make sure that the will of the people will be expressed by the people's representatives in debate and decision. Therefore I hope that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, one of the most important Amendments that has been before the House for some time, will press it to a Division and that many hon. Members of all parties will support it on constitutional grounds.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, and I only do so in order to challenge a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He said that the urban population had given permission to the Government to introduce food taxes. That statement might be correct if the word "rural" were substituted for the word "urban" in it, but I do not believe that the majority of Members here can say that, in the industrial constituencies, the electors were told that food taxes would be imposed. It might be true to say that those electors voted for a doctor's mandate and that it was not clearly stated what cure would be used, but it is not true to say that the Government were given definite instructions to
apply the cure of food taxes. I, personally, gave a pledge, not only that I would not subscribe to food taxes, but that, if they were introduced by a National Government, I would oppose them, and I have kept strictly to that pledge.
I make a personal appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. There was some discussion a few weeks ago as to the specific pledge which the right hon. Gentleman had given at the last election on this question. I believe he said that the pledge which he gave referred to wheat and meat. I hope I do not misrepresent him. I know that this proposal of the Government does not give a direct instruction to the Advisory Committee to impose a tax on meat, but it gives them the power to do so, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to go one step along that line. Reference has been made to the election speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Perhaps the meaning suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Sir H. Croft) may be given to that speech, but, as regards what the right hon. Gentleman did say, the tragedy of it is, now that we see food taxes introduced, that the electorate did not believe him. It does not make his statement incorrect, but the electorate did not take it to be correct at that time. It always seems to me to be dangerous to sound the human note in this Assembly. One always hear it referred to as "sob stuff," but I make no apology for using "sob stuff." I think that if emotion were taken out of life, then life would not be worth living. Yesterday this House imposed a tax on tea. A few weeks ago we passed a Measure which will make a staple food, the bread of the people, dearer, and now we are going to take away from the people the opportunity of buying meat in the cheapest market. Last September we called on the people to make sacrifices in the interests of the nation. They responded nobly. This seems a poor return to make for the response which they gave. I trust that not only Members on these benches, but Members opposite also, will vote for this Amendment, and that every man who gave a pledge against food taxes—and there is no
challenging the statement that many did —will support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment, and I join with the last speaker in appealing to Members of all parties to show some reasonable sense of fairness on this question. I do not think it is true, and I have never heard any hon. Member opposite attempt to prove, that during the General Election they stated to the electorate that they were in favour of taxing the people's food. When all is said and done, the issue now before the House is so vital to the general community that no Government, whatever its name, whether National or Grand National, has any right to take advantage of its position to impose further taxation on wheat and meat without taking the decision of the community upon it. Any fair-minded man must agree that the issue is too vital to be treated in any other way, and though I have not a great deal of respect for the fair-mindedness of this Government, I thought they would be fairer than to attempt to include in food taxation, wheat and meat, in the way now proposed. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the effect of this proposal on the men whom I represent. An hon. Member has already spoken of the effect upon dockers, and I should like to point out how this new tariff policy affects the mine-workers of the country. I ask the Government, would they not be better engaged in giving some slight attention to the mining industry as a whole and the development of that industry—

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter is hardly relevant to the Question before the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I suggest, sincerely, that as a result of the effect of these duties on the coal-mining industry, our men are being left with wages on which it takes them all their time to keep bodies and souls together, and if we are to have further taxation on their bread and meat, then the Government is taking an undue advantage of them. I never remember in the course of the election any hon. Gentleman opposite making the statement that he would support food taxation. Speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have been quoted in which they said
that certain industries would be examined from the point of view of Protection, but they never said that they would go the whole hog in the protection of food. As I say, before any Government takes such a step, the electors themselves ought to decide. The Wakefield result has given some indication of how people in the industrial areas feel regarding the steps already taken by the Government. If it was a question of reorganising agriculture, we on this side would give the fullest consideration to any real practical policy directed to tend that way, but there is no policy here. If we are to discuss the fundamental question of agricultural reorganisation, we ought to have some proper scheme before us showing how agriculture is to be reorganised. If that were the Government's intention, one could understand it; but as to going on in this slipshod way, putting a tax on tea of £3,500,000; putting £6,000,000 on flour and bread, and then proposing further taxation on bread and meat—we say that this is not what the National Government were returned to do. You are not even being faithful to your own followers, and we oppose that policy tooth and nail. I hope that at least the Government will have some sense of proportion and fairness, and that before they go so far as to allow the three men appointed on this Committee to deal with what is a vastly important political and economic issue, affecting every worker in the country, they will think twice and accept the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This Resolution is not a proposal to put a tax upon meat, and those arguments which have proceeded upon the assumption that that was the proposal are, of course, premature, and I shall be absolved from dealing with them. Nor is this a proposal which takes the House of Commons by surprise. It is the fulfilment of a pledge publicly made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 18th February last, and I would recall to the minds of hon. Members that when that pledge was made no exception was taken to it in any quarter of the House. Until this very afternoon the Government were under the uncorrected impression that that pledge met the general convenience and desires of the House.
I would remind my hon. Friends of the position as it was when the Import Duties Bill was introduced. It was proposed by that Measure to put an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. upon all importations into this country. For various reasons, however, it was desired to exempt certain of those importations, either because of the considerations mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which have been amply quoted by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to-day, or because the articles in question could not be produced in this country or in the Empire, or—and this is most important—because it was desired to reserve them for even severer treatment in the Budget; and some of my hon. Friends who are regarding that Free List as sacred this afternoon assented only yesterday to one of the items in that Free List, namely, tea, being taxed at 4d. per lb.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Personally, I voted against the tea tax, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. By the mere fact of taking these out of the Free List, are you not at once putting on a 10 per cent. tariff?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension. The Resolution imposes no tax whatever. I was explaining that, although an article, such as tea, may be in this Free List, it can, with the assent of the very hon. Members who have been criticising it this afternoon, be put into a Budget and taxed otherwise. That being the position, a Free List having been created of items which were included for various reasons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pressed to add certain articles to the list. He desired to deal justly by the House, and he pointed out to the House that this list was of a fairly rigid character. He reminded the House that the Act enabled the Advisory Committee, which it established, to propose additions to the list but not subtractions from it, and he said, and the House agreed with him, that this was an illogical position. You could not maintain a rigid list if you were to accept Amendments which hon. Members desired to have accepted, and so he said, "I will show a greater latitude to hon. Members in accepting their Amendments, upon the
understanding that I can rationalise the position by enabling the Committee not only to add to the Free List, but on further examination to recommend subtractions from it."
He actually put Amendments on the Paper to that effect. Those Amendments were, for purely technical reasons, ruled out of order, and my right hon. Friend then rose and said, in the hearing of everybody, that he would rectify that position upon the Finance Bill. Had he not taken that course, he would never have accepted the Amendments which he did, and therefore it is not fair that hon. Members who have had the advantage of having their Amendments accepted should now resist one of the conditions upon which they were accepted. That is the situation. There is no proposal to tax anything, but there is a proposal to allow the Advisory Committee full latitude to make recommendations. When the Advisory Committee, if they do, make a proposal to tax meat or wheat, it will then be for hon. Members opposite to talk about the effects of such a tax on the poor or, if they be so minded, on the producers. But that contingency has not yet arisen.
I was therefore amazed, in listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price), when he talked of the grave effects that the duties that we had already imposed had had on the working classes. Has he forgotten that the cost of living has actually-fallen? Has he never directed his attention to this paradox, that whereas many of the articles which we taxed have fallen in price, meat, which we did not tax, happens to have risen?

Mr. PRICE: Your policy has found miners out of work—thousands of them since you came into office—and others working short time.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the constituents of my hon. Friend are as misguided as he appears to be, I am not surprised that they vote for him. I beg my hon. Friend to appreciate, what is true, that there is no proposal here to-day to tax any miner or anybody else. What we are doing here is to fulfil a pledge, and I hope that hon. Members will not prevent us from doing that.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has tried to persuade the House that this Resolution is in fulfilment of a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I well remember the occasion of the Debate to which he referred, and I am sure that I should get the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself if I said in his presence that his remarks were not in contemplation of anything that has been done to-day. I remember well that what the Chancellor said was that this list was not to be a permanent list, that the schedule of articles in it might be subject to Amendments, might be amended by additions or subtractions; and I remember the impression made on the minds of hon. Members that that would mean an Amendment to remove one duty and an Amendment to insert another. That is not the thing that has been done to-day.

Major ELLIOT: Might I call my hon. Friend's attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 23rd February, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer says:
We are therefore proceeding on the assumption that ultimately the committee will be clothed with powers to recommend not only that imports should be put on the Free List, but also that they should be taken out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; col. 325, Vol. 262.]
That is the clothing of the committee with general powers, not with specific powers, as the hon. Member says.

Mr. GRENFELL: I confess that my impression was that the committee would be entitled to add to or subtract from the list; there is no meaning to the words "subtraction and addition" unless the list remains. But what do we find to-day? The hon. Member has tried to evade the responsibility which falls upon him of debating this Amendment. His speech might very well have been part of a Debate on the first Amendment. After all, there were pledges given, and what is the use of the hon. Member's reference to a Member of the Government who is not present? Why does he not quote the hon. Member who sits by his side; why does he not quote statements made, in this House and outside, by the President of the Board of Trade; why does he not ask that right hon. Gentleman to get up now, to take the House into his confidence, and to say
whether he did not give pledges himself that no tax should be placed on food? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman rise in his place to remove the embarrassment from his Under-Secretary, and say if, and when, and why he has changed his mind? Why do not the responsible people speak? I absolve the Financial Secretary to the Treasury altogether. I think his conduct of the Debate has been exemplary, and his conduct of the business right through, but it is not good enough to find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade taking upon himself the responsibility of whitewashing everybody in the Government in the way that he did.
There have been pledges. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) went very much further than I expected him to go this afternoon when he said that, after all, it does not matter very much in the ultimate what we tell the people who elected us, because, he said, this House is supreme over every other factor in the Constitution. We cannot flout the public who sent us here. My authority here is obtained from the people who sent me here, and my authority has been received because I have given them the impression, time and time again, that I stand irrevocably for certain things, one of which is Free Trade. If the hon. Member says the House of Commons is supreme, what is his quarrel with the House of Commons and the Government? I charge the Government, not with having failed in their conduct of the Government, but with failing to fulfil their pledges to the people outside, and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green also must stick to his pledges. If we all do that, this House cannot go very far wrong.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) does not want his pledges examined too closely. He is very sensitive, as are a good many people in the House to-day. I have not known a day, in my experience in this House, when matters of conscience have been so prominent. The Home Secretary is not here to tell us how he feels about the matter. He has gone away. If the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) were here now, I would offer him a word or two of sympathy. He is a sinner who has erred against his conscience, and he appeals to the lawyers and scribes and
Pharisees in this House to restore his peace of mind. He wants to be respectable once again. He has joined in a quartette, a political party, who want absolution at the hands of the House of Commons, but those four Members who voted to-day are unnecessarily in distress. They can now abstain from further insincerity and deception, and the advice that we give them is to go and sin no more.
The same advice we give to the Government, and especially to the Liberal Members of the Government. What about the Liberal electors in this country? What of the pledges given them? What is the position of the Parliamentary Secretary? Has he no Liberal electors? Did he tell them he would hand over himself and his party and their destinies to a Government which is to-day confessedly a Tory Government? It has been said from all parts of the House that this is now a Tory Government. We say that there are broken pledges. There was to be a Free List, there is in existence a Free List, and we find by this Resolution not an amendment of the list, but a list from which there will be freedom to pick and choose. We want to keep the Free List, and we particularly want to keep these commodities free from even the possibility of a tariff and an addition to their price.
There is a constitutional issue here. We are now facing a revolution in politics. Earlier to-day the House considered the maintenance of the constitution. On the Order Paper at the same time there was a proposal by the Government to go back to the system which an hon. Friend describe as the triumvirate. Three people are to determine what price the people are to pay for their bread and wheat and all the articles contained in this Schedule. I would like to point out the dangers in which the people of this country stand. Already, under the guise of a Measure which was declared not to be a Protectionist Measure, but a quota system, the price of wheat imported into this country has been raised by 20 per cent. There is the possibility of a further rise and of a rise in the price of flour. This Resolution means the abandonment of the Free List, and in three months we may find not a single article remaining on it. When the list disappears there will be opportunity for
vested interests to bring pressure on the Government. This Government is the creation of vested interests, and the tool of vested interests. They will come along and insist that further taxation shall be put upon bread and meat. There will be no end to the process of proceeding on the slippery slope under the momentum given by vested interests at a pace which will be accelerated by the slope along which we are travelling. I can see the cost of living rising higher and higher, and the conditions of the people being lowered and being made worse and worse by taxation of all kinds. I would press the Financial Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade to return to some semblance of loyalty to the pledges they gave and of some responsibility to the people who elected them, and to see that at least these two commodities shall be maintained in the Free List for all time.

Sir P. HARRIS: I would not have intervened but for the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Why he thought it necessary to intervene in what is not his "pigeon," but the responsibility of the Financial Secretary, I do not quite understand. We are under no delusions. We understand the position quite well. This Resolution does not mean a tax yet on wheat and meat. It is a proposal to vest certain powers in the committee of three, and all that we are suggesting is that certain articles should not be dealt with. One already has been largely taken out of the power of the committee. That is tea. The Government have not thought fit to consult the committee about that, but have put it into the ordinary proposals of the Budget. We say that there are two other articles to which the same principle applies—bread and meat—which are essential articles of diet of the ordinary people. The producers can look after themselves, but the great consuming public is not organised and not able to look after itself, so that the House of Commons has a special responsibility. I suggest that wheat also is largely out of the responsibility of the Advisory Committee, because it is already dealt with by the Quota Act. I cannot imagine, therefore, that this committee of three will make any recommendation that it should be taken off the Free List. It is already subject to a tax through the quota system. There remains only meat.
I have a great respect for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He is a model Member of the House of Commons, and never conceals his opinions, and I am sure that he did not conceal his opinions to the electorate. He came here with a fair mandate, and I am sure that he and the majority of the House, while in favour of some form of tariffs, are opposed to food taxes, and particularly to a tax on meat.
The reason why we want to exclude meat from the power of revision of this committee is that at a time like this it is essential that the country should feel that there will not be any artificial increase in the cost of living. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade produced the very original argument that meat should be included in the list of possible taxable articles because it had gone up in price. He said, "It has gone up in price because we have not taxed it." That was his argument. According to that, a tax ought to be proposed at once and the price of meat will go down, or the foreigner will pay. The Government must be composed of very poor creatures if in a time of financial stringency they do not tax articles so that they will go down in price and the foreigner will be made to pay. That is a novel theory, and ought to be exploded. Under the provisions of the Act, this committee of three has to make a recommendation to the Government that a duty should be imposed. Then the Government, if they think fit, can propose a tax forthwith, and if the House happens to be in Recess, or is shortly going into Recess, we may have meat taxed during August, September, October and November, with no power in the House to criticise, modify or alter it. These two articles should come in a special category and be excluded. Then the advisory committee would be freed from the responsibility of giving protection to the meat interests and of having to consider their views. We should feel more comfortable, and our representatives would go to Ottawa with greater confidence if meat were permanently on the Free List.

Major NATHAN: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was a little disingenuous when he referred to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was
seeking in the Finance Bill for power to exclude articles from the Free List through the intermediary of the advisory committee. The Chairman ruled out of order any such proposal, and it would not have been in order for hon. Members to discuss it. It was therefore disingenuous of my hon. Friend to pour scorn upon us because hon. Members who found themselves in disagreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer refrained from attempting to discuss that matter at a time when it would have been ruled out of order, and deferred their objections to a time when, as now, it was in order.

Major ELLIOT: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the House was not fully cognisant of the fact that this committee was to be clothed with full powers in the Finance Bill to deal with these subjects, and was not equally aware that it was to be fully clothed with full powers to deal with meat? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that the House went to a Division on that occasion in the full knowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended that the committee would not merely be clothed with these powers, but specifically clothed with power to deal with meat?

Major NATHAN: In my recollection the Chancellor stated that he would seek sanction to give the Advisory Committee power to be able to withdraw articles from the Free List, but there was no specific reference to meat.

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a passage in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on 23rd February, in which he said:
It is obviously impossible for the Government to leave this Debate without stating, quite categorically, whether they have in fact decided now to leave meat on the Free List as being a redemption of an election pledge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; col. 339, Vol. 262.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically indicated dissent from any suggestion that meat was to remain unconsidered by this Committee, and after that passage across the Floor of the House, not merely did all the Conservative Members vote, but my hon. and gallant Friend who is now speaking went Into the Lobby along with the Government.

Major NATHAN: I would reply to that extract that unhappily I am unable to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer shake his head. I would go further and say that it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that a powerful Debate was initiated by Members of the Conservative party with a view to meat being taken off the Free List. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an eloquent and pungent speech, successfully resisted the Amendment, and advanced as a reason for so doing that a tariff might result in an increase in price, and he rejected the suggestion that the fear of an increase in price was nothing but a bogey.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I intervene, as a passage from my speech has been quoted? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have read the next sentence, which was:
That is entirely in opposition to the nod of the head which I got from the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps they have already agreed to differ upon this point. I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they have not made up their minds. On the other hand, I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that he has made up his mind anyway on this matter, and that so far as he is concerned he is going to he no party to the taxation of meat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; col. 339, Vol. 262.]

Major NATHAN: I leave my right hon. Friend and the late Solicitor-General to fight out between themselves the meaning of these extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

7.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny from the statement just read out that, on the question being put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the responsible officer who was speaking for the Government, he did not —as he has himself admitted—receive an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in no way going to be a party to the suggestion that meat was to be excluded from any consideration by the Committee? It was on that specific assurance, repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a later stage, that he would not say not merely that this Government was not going to have it considered, but that he would give no assurance that he would not have it taxed, and on that assurance alone that
he got his Division. Both the hon. Members for Bethnal Green, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Home Secretary, all went into the Lobby on the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at the earliest possible moment he would give the Committee power to consider the articles on the Free List, and that meat was specifically not excluded from the consideration of the Committee.

Major NATHAN: The right hon. Member is entitled to any satisfaction he can obtain from a record of one of the few occasions on which I found myself in the same Lobby as he. The issue on which hon. Members went into the Lobby was not a conversation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but the terms of the Motion then before the Committee. It was on that alone that the votes were given in the Lobby, and I repudiate any suggestion that any vote of mine would be given on the footing of a conversation between two hon. Members, unless my views were in accord with the terms of the Resolution which was being put to the vote. The matter does not end there because, if the right hon. Gentleman will make further researches into the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused an Amendment suggesting that meat should be excluded from the Free List. That was a deliberate act of policy on the part of the Government only six weeks ago. It was a decision affirmatively that meat should be on the Free List, and negatively that it should not be within the power of the Advisory Committee to take meat from the Free List. That was the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government on that occasion. A Division was taken, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his way.
The President of the Board of Trade has been quoted as having made a speech to his constituents at St. Ives to the effect that he would not be a party to the taxation of food. When that quotation was made, my right hon. Friend rose and stated, "I did not say foodstuffs. I said meat and wheat." The right hon. Member thus affirmed from the Treasury Bench that he was pledged to oppose the taxation of meat and wheat. It is, of course, clear that the Amendment of the
Import Duties Act, which is now before the House, does not of itself impose a tax, but it is an indication that, should the advisory committee think proper to recommend a tax upon wheat and meat, the Government are prepared to accede to that recommendation and, as in the case of the recent report of the advisory committee, to act as the uncritical instrument of the advisory committee. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade boasted that the cost of living has gone down. Is he quite sure that any articles which have so far been subjected to the tax are included in the cost-of-living index? Will he deny that the effect of the tax must be either to increase the price or, if the price should be reduced, to prevent the full fall in price from reaching the consumer?
When the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made a speech in 1927, in the year following the imposition of the Silk Duties, in which he used words to this effect—I speak in his presence—"I am bound to confess that, had it not been for these duties, the reduction in price would have been greater than that which has taken place." So it is with the commodities which are the subject

of the present Import Duties Act. The hon. Member is in this dilemma. Either he must admit that the prices have gone up or that they have not gone down as much as they would have done but for the duty. As to wheat, this House was given to understand when the Wheat Quota Bill was introduced that that was in substitution for any attempt to deal with wheat under the Import Duties Act. Now power is taken to give a discretion to the advisory committee to recommend a duty upon wheat to supplement the burdens already borne under the wheat quota system. By opposing this Amendment, the Government have made it clear beyond all dispute that, despite the pledges given by individual Ministers, including the President of the Board of Trade, the Government are prepared calmly and coolly to contemplate the possibility of imposing taxes upon wheat and meat. Speaking for myself and for my hon. Friends who sit upon these benches as Liberals and Free Traders, I say that is a. proposal we shall resist to the end.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 305.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harbord, Arthur
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Holdeworth, Herbert
Salter, Or. Alfred


Cowan, D. M.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea. West)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.


Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Apsley, Lord
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, Cyril
Beauchamp, Sir Brograva Campbell


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Milne, Charles


Bilndell, James
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Borodale, Viscount
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bossom, A. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Gibson, Charles Granville
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morrison, William Shephard


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gledhill, Gilbert
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Bracken, Brendan
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Goff. sir Park
Nail, Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Goldle, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Granvllie, Edgar
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Grimston, R. V.
North, Captain Edward T.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nunn, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burghley, Lord
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hales, Harold K.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hanbury, Cecil
Patrick, Colin M.


Calne, G. R. Hall-
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peat, Charles U.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland, George A.
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major William H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cassels, James Dale
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Potter, John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hepworth, Joseph
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Pybus, Percy John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hornby Frank
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Christie, James Archibald
Horne, Rt. hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsden, E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horobin, Ian M.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Clarke, Frank
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ray, Sir William


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Clayton Dr. George C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colville, John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cook, Thomas A.
Jennings, Roland
Ross, Ronald D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crossley, A. C.
Law Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lees-Jones, John
Salt, Edward W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Liddall, Walter S.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Scone, Lord


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sallay, Harry R.


Doran, Edward
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duckworth. George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mac Andrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eady, George H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Eastwood, John Francis
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Eden, Robert Anthony
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
McLean, Major Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maitland, Adam
Stevenson, James


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stones, James


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C (Bik'pool)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Storey, Samuel


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-




Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Templeton, William P.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thompson, Luke
Wells, Sydney Richard



Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Captain Austin Hudson and


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Womersley.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in line 24, to leave out from the word "allowed" to the word "without," in line 25.
The object of moving this Amendment is to get an explanation from the Government of their object in inserting the words which we are moving to omit. We agree with allowing a drawback, but we are not sure why it is stated that
the drawback may be allowed for any period or periods, whether continuous or not, or without any limit of period.
The words "without any limit of period" seem to be quite applicable, but is it contemplated that a drawback may be allowed for a month and then taken off again and then allowed for another month? I understood that it was the policy of the Government to have certainty in these matters, and with that we agree, but here they seem to be contemplating a shifting drawback which comes on for a period and then goes off for a period.

Major ELLIOT: The words have been inserted, perhaps from an excess of caution on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman, with the knowledge that there may be periods in which it is undesirable to give the drawback continuously. There may be cases in which supplies of home-produced articles are available, and it would be our desire that home-produced articles, which would not require the drawback, should be taken for exportation rather than that articles should be imported and subsequently re-exported. I am sure the hon. and learned Member will agree that that is consistent with the lines on which we are proceeding. Further, home-produced articles may be available from time to time, but not always continuously. As we wish to promote the manufacture of goods at home, we should like to leave it within the power of the committee to recommend a drawback which should not be continuous. I think the power will, in fact, be very seldom used; it is merely a power which
one would wish to see reserved; but it is along the lines of our general policy. I hope, after that explanation, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to let us have this part of the Resolution.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in line 32, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "or other goods."
Paragraph (3) of the Resolution provides that if machinery is not available in this country it may be allowed in duty free, and the question arises why that concession should be confined to machinery, because there must be many goods necessary to trade and industry which cannot be manufactured in this country at the present time, and it might be some years before our manufacturers were able to produce them. I should also like to know whether machine tools are included in the word "machinery." There are many machine tools which are not manufactured in this country, but which are necessary and have to be imported. Further, will electrical appliances come within the definition of "machinery," or are they regarded as outside, so that they will have to pay duty? If goods which are necessary have to bear a duty, it may hamper our production. I do not know how far paragraph (3) can be said to cover duty free articles, but the Resolution specifies that where articles are not produced in this country the committee shall have power to inquire and to make recommendations. There are quite a number of things which are not manufactured in this country, and there are also many articles of food which cannot be produced in this country, and that is why we are moving to insert the words "or other goods."
It is not possible for me to say what the words "other goods" may include, because there are so many of them, but we ought to have in this paragraph a
clear definition of the Government's intention, because, after all, it does provide a kind of committee case. It is asking that certain goods shall be considered by the Advisory Committee, and that they shall recommend to the Minister whether they are to be allowed in duty free or not. We believe the scope of the Measure ought to be extended, and goods other than machinery brought within the purview of the committee. The Resolution, as it is presented to the House, is too confined and not explicit enough; we need 'a clearer definition.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The reason why this paragraph applies to machinery but not to the other commodities which the hon. Member wishes to include is that we have followed closely the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and it was only in regard to machinery that they asked for this flexibility in procedure. It is well known that some particularly intricate machines are not made in this

country, and where that is the case it is desired to spare our manufacturers any loss ox inconvenience which they might otherwise suffer. My hon. Friend next asked me whether machine tools came within the definition of machinery. I can give him an affirmative answer upon that point. Electrical machinery is also, of course, included under the general heading "machinery." If the hon. Member looks into the matter more closely he will see how impossible it would be to apply this procedure which the committee has suggested in regard to machinery to other goods. The number of applications made would be simply limitless. Therefore, it is proposed to adhere to what has been suggested by the tribunal, and ask the House of Commons to give the Government power to ratify their recommendations.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 273.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[7.32 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nathan, Majar H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. 


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bracken, Brendan
Christie, James Archibald


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Clarke, Frank


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colman, N. C. D.


Atkinson, Cyril
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Colville, John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Conant, R. J. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cook, Thomas A.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Burghley, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Carver, Major William H.
Crossley, A. C.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cassels, James Dale
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Welverh'pton W.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)


Blindell, James
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bossom, A. C.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Dickie, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Doran, Edward
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Drewe, Cedric
Lees-Jones, John
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Levy, Thomas
Ross, Ronald D.


Dunglass, Lord
Liddall, Walter S.
Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Eady, George H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runge. Norah Cecil


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lock wood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rustell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mac Andrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McCorquodale, M. S.
Salt, Edward W.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Scone, Lord


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Selley, Harry R.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Major Alan
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gibson, Charles Granville
Maitland, Adam
Smith, Louie W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smithers, Waldron


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gluckstein, Louis Hatle
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Creydon, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, Charles
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chlsw'k)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Z'tf'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stevenson, James


Hanbury, Cecil
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stones, James


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Storey, Samuel


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Harbord, Arthur
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hartland, George A.
Munro, Patrick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail, Sir Joseph
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Templeton, William P.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Nunn, William
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William O.A.
Vaugnan-Margan, Sir Kenyon


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Palmer, Francis Neel
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin M.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Horobin, Ian M.
Peat, Charles U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Howard Tom Forrest
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Wedderhurn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Potter, John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Jennings, Roland
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William
Wise, Alfred R.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Kimball, Lawrence
Raid, David D. (County Down)



Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Womersley.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in line 32, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "or medical, surgical, or scientific instruments."
The addition of those words would make the paragraph read:
Provision may be made for exempting from the duties chargeable under the said Act any consignment of machinery, or medical, surgical, or scientific instruments.
It is unnecessary to say very much to recommend this Amendment to the Committee. I should have thought that the Government in advance would have made this special exemption. I cannot think that the Government really mean to tax instruments of this kind. It is well known that in case of war the ambulance stations are removed as far as possible from the activities of the enemy, and we are asking
to-night for the exemption of medical and surgical instruments which are so necessary for the sick and wounded. I gather from the Board of Trade Navigation Account that the total amount of medical, surgical and scientific instruments imported into this country from abroad last year amounted in value to £337,000. I do not know whether those instruments are cheaper now, but it means that the medical profession in this country are dependent for these instruments to that amount upon foreign countries. As everyone knows, the hospitals of this country are experiencing very great financial difficulties and they find it more and more difficult to conduct their work in proper circumstances. Therefore, any imposition of taxation upon the instruments imported from abroad would certainly increase the expenditure and the difficulties of our hospitals, and of all those who carry on work of that nature. Therefore, we are asking the Government to exempt these instruments, and I hope we shall not ask in vain. I trust that the Government will put this kind of thing quite outside the ordinary arena of controversy.
There is another point. We know that in scientific matters, and particularly in the higher branches of science, the more delicate the instruments are, the less likely they are to be affected toy bounties. I believe that instruments of this kind are supposed to be more affected by an international outlook, because of the great human needs for which they are designed, and, therefore, it is probable that doctors who need operating and other scientific instruments will be almost solely dependent upon instruments which come from abroad.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member's reference to scientific instruments is in order, in view of the fact that most classes of scientific instruments are chargeable under the Finance Act, 1926, which continued the provisions of Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921?

Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy that at any rate some of them are, and, if so, it would not be in order to deal with them now.

Mr. LAWSON: I am only arguing in reference to those scientific instruments
which are necessary for medical and surgical purposes, and, particularly, are needed by hospitals. The point that I was making was that sometimes these instruments are almost the sole design of one particular nation, just as, I dare say, ours go abroad to other countries, and I think the House will agree that no penalty ought to be put upon an instrument used by a surgeon for the purpose of improving health or curing human ailments. It is particularly the great hospitals, many of whose patients can afford to pay very little for the help and attention that they receive, that will be penalised by an imposition of this kind. I do not wish to descend to bathos in connection with such a matter as this, but it seems to me that common humanity would urge the Government to give relief in this direction, whatever may be their views in regard to the other matters with which they have been dealing.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that a great many of these medical and surgical scientific instruments are already liable to duty, and, if that be the case, those that are liable to duty would be exempted from the provisions of the Import Duties Act, and, therefore, the hon. Member will not be in order in including in his Amendment those particular medical and surgical instruments which are not now subject to duty under the Act.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It would have been my reply to my hon. Friend that nearly all the instruments to which he can possibly be referring are already included in the legislation which has been mentioned. It was only because I did not wish to interfere with his argument that I refrained from putting that as a point of Order, but it is the case.

Mr. COCKS: Could we have a list of the instruments to which it would be in order to refer under this Amendment, so that we may confine ourselves to them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot supply it.

Mr. LANSBURY: If no one can supply it—and I am not sure that the Minister himself could tell us which are in and which are out—I submit that we are entitled to argue in favour of the exemption
of, say, newly invented surgical instruments which would not be included under the Safeguarding duties.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would then be necessary to include in the Amendment some words to indicate that it referred to those instruments which are not now subject to duty.

Mr. LAWSON: The Parliamentary Secretary was careful to say, not that all such instruments, but that nearly all were liable to duty, so that, after all, we are asking for very little. There may be a certain number of instruments which it would be possible to exempt, and we ask the hon. Gentleman to exempt those which he has power to leave free to come in without duty. As these instruments are needed for the great hospitals, I trust that he will be able to give us a helpful answer.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I have said, I did not raise the point of Order which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), because I wished to give the Mover of the Amendment every opportunity of developing his argument. I need hardly say that it is an argument which appeals to the sympathy of the House and of the Government. I do not know exactly to what instruments he was referring which could possibly be excluded from the existing legislation, but, if he has in mind any particular class of instruments in favour of whose exemption a powerful case can be made, that case could be presented to the Advisory Committee, who, under the existing law, would have power to recommend its insertion in the Free List. I trust, therefore, that if at a later stage my hon. Friend discovers some omission from the Key Industries Duties of which we were not aware, and on behalf of which he thinks he can present a powerful plea, he will follow the course that I have suggested.

Mr. COCKS: After the hon. Gentleman's sympathetic reply, I do not intend to continue the discussion, except to say that I notice, from the statements which has been issued, that Members of Parliament have no status whatever before the Advisory Committee, and are refused a hearing. If that be so, how can my hon. Friend present his case?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was thinking of the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a trade union leader. Anyone who is accredited as representing an industry can, of course, make representations to the Advisory Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether all medical and surgical instruments are already included in the law to which he has referred? I should like to know how we stand with respect to the various categories of instruments. The Leader of the Opposition has made an important point. Suppose that all these instruments are already covered by existing legislation, but that next week an instrument is invented abroad which may become of prime importance to the hospitals of this country, and may be of vital interest from the point of view of safeguarding human life. We want, if possible, to carry this Amendment so that any new instrument which the medical profession may deem to be of high importance should be able to come into this country without being subject to any financial embargo. Our hospitals are nowadays hard put to it to maintain their day-to-day activities, and, indeed, a Bill has been presented in this House for the purpose of artificially stimulating the flow of charity to them. Is it not, therefore, in the highest degree desirable that we should not place extra burdens upon the finances of those hospitals by making these highly important and desirable instruments more expensive to procure? Whatever the case may be for putting taxes upon food or other commodities, surely we ought to be sufficiently enlightened not to erect artificial barriers against the development and interchange of scientific opinion and experience. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that, if any new instrument of this kind should be invented in the future, it will be able to come in without any embargo.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act reads as follows:
For the purpose of preventing disputes arising as to whether any goods are or are not any goods chargeable with duty under this part of this Act, the Board may from time to time issue lists defining the articles
which are to be taken as falling under any of the general descriptions set out in the said Schedule…
Accordingly, if a new scientific instrument is invented, all that the Board of Trade have to do is to add it to the list, so that I am afraid that even that ingenious argument of the hon. Gentleman is defeated.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in line 39, after the word "procurable," to insert the words "at a reasonable price."
8.0 p.m.
In this Amendment we ask that, if an article cannot be sold at a reasonable price when produced in this country, a duty should not be placed upon it when it comes into this country from abroad. The Lord President of the Council, in a speech a few days ago, said that there were two lines of thought on the question of a tariff. One was that it ought not to be put on and the other was that it ought to be put on, and he said that time would prove which was right and which wrong. If tariffs are to have a fair trial we ask that they should be tried under normal conditions. Whatever industry seeks protection, it should not be allowed to sell its products at any price it likes. If a duty is put on without regard to that condition, it is possible that an industry will put up its price to any height, and then the consumer will have to pay. That would not be fair to the consumer. It would, moreover, be giving an unfair advantage to the manufacturer, and it would lead to inefficiency. I am confident that those who advocate tariffs do not want to bolster up any industry behind Protection so that that industry can take advantage of the position.
We on these benches are opposed to tariffs, but we can see that the country has decided that tariffs are to have a trial. I confess openly that if tariffs, after fair trial, prove to be a solution of our present economic position, the opponents of tariffs must admit that there is something in the tariff policy. But before we are convinced we want the trial to be under conditions that will not give undue advantage to the manufacturers. We do not want a. manufacturer to be able to say, "AH right. I have so much
influence in the House of Commons and various Members have given me power to put on any price I like. I can now do all I want in putting up the price." If that happens it will defeat the tariffist idea.
Our Amendment in a way helps the honest man who believes that tariffs are a solution. We ask the Government to see our point of view, which is that if tariffs are to be tried at least some attention ought to be given to the consumer. Prices should be reasonable. As I have said on other occasions, I do not stand in this House for the purpose of allowing goods to come into this country when it can be proved that they have been produced under what may toe termed sweated conditions. But on the other hand I do not want a tariff policy to allow people in this country to have full sway and to do what they like regarding the production and price of goods.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Amendment is identical with one which was moved by the hon. Member when the Import Duties Bill was under discussion. I think the hon. Member moved such an Amendment on two occasions.

Mr. TINKER: I supported it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Of course it is an Amendment which, on the face of it, would commend itself to anyone, but I explained in the Committee discussions on that Bill that the Advisory Committee had a sanction far more powerful than the use of a vague phrase of this kind. In any case of abuse the Advisory Committee can recommend a revocation of the duty. That is the most efficient weapon that can be put into the hands of the Committee. The use of the words of the Amendment, vague as they are, would impose an additional task on the Committee. We are here dealing with specialised machinery, and the Amendment would impose on the Advisory Committee the duty of inquiring in every case what was a reasonable price for a rare or unique piece of work. I hope my hon. Friend will see that the proposal is not practicable, although the intention that he has in view is most desirable. I think facts will show that the Advisory Committee will have regard to reasonable price and will act as a safeguard to the consumer.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hardly think that the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is adequate. He seemed to think that it is sufficient safeguard for the Advisory Committee to be empowered with authority to revoke duties. Through-oat debates in the country on this question of Free Trade versus Protection one big argument has almost invariably been adduced, and it has considerable strength. The Parliamentary Secretary has not given it sufficient attention to-day. The effect of imposing a duty is to take a certain amount of competition out of the home market. Once you have removed the competition from foreign sources in the home market, that market is restricted to a certain number of home competitors. These instruments are very largely of a specialised character, and therefore the number of people who will cater for the home market will be limited. The more limited the number of people operating within the protected market the more easily can those who operate in the market effect mutual arrangements. Out of these mutual arrangements one can easily visualise the coming of a trust or monopoly.
What is the effect almost invariably of the creation of a trust within a given industry, where there is no competition possible outside the terms of the trust? It is to create a monopoly, and one of the effects of a monoply is that the monopolistic concern is able to fix its own price for an article. If there is to be no competition whatever what is to prevent the monopolistic concern from, imposing what is a wholly unreasonable charge from the point of view of the consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary always tries to be fair to us, but he has not met that point. It is not enough that some committee sitting behind closed doors, free from Parliamentary control, shall determine if and when it will intervene in the interests of the consumer. Out of regard for its responsibility to the citizens of the country, this House ought to introduce reservations into this kind of legislation, so that the consumers shall not be unduly exploited. It may be that the word "reasonable" is a little vague, but the words of the Amendment would be an indication to the Advisory Committee of the will and mind of this House in the matter. The Amendment might be regarded as an instruction from this
House that the Advisory Committee must have regard to this one vital element in the consideration of its procedure.

Mr. PIKE: If the Government really are looking for something to do, if they want more work than they have already on hand, I strongly recommend them to accept the Amendment, for if accepted it will cause unending inquiry, unending observation and certainly unending documentary proof that breaches of the rule have been practised. The hon. Members who moved and supported the Amendment empasised the importance of a reasonable price, that is, a price that does not go beyond a certain figure. But surely there is the other side of the question. There is the question of the price falling below a certain figure, and the two hon. Members would be the first to make an outcry if they realised that, by means of this Amendment, they were placing a weapon in the hands of foreign competitors which gave them the power to go below what they, as responsible Labour leaders, considered to be a reasonable price in so far as the value of the produce of their own labour was concerned. That is the real danger of the Amendment.
After all, who decides what is a reasonable price? Is it the person who wants the commodity that is produced—is it the price that he can actually afford to pay for it—or is it some outside body? These inquiries would necessarily follow the insertion of these words, and they would cause untold trouble and the greatest difficulty and unnecessary expense. The Mover of the Amendment said he did not agree with sweating, and he would prevent the import of sweated goods completely. If you insert these words, you will fix the level of what in this country is considered to be a reasonable price, and the moment you do that yon will have your foreign competitors doing their utmost to get below it. I ask him to withdraw the Amendment in view of the unnecessary trouble and expense to which it would put those who have to administer the law.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think the hon. Member has failed entirely to understand the purpose of the Amendment and the method in which it is going to work.
The object is somewhat to widen discretion in the matter. The Resolution as it stands says:
That the Treasury after receiving the recommendation from the said Committee to the effect that machinery of the kind in question is not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom.
There might be some exceptional piece of machinery at a price that was absolutely prohibitive. There might be very good reasons—trade reasons, health reasons or scientific reasons—for the import of some of this machinery, but, if you pass this as it is, the Treasury can only act on receiving a recommendation of the committee to the effect that machinery of this kind is not procurable at all. We propose to put in the words "at a reasonable price." The hon. Member talked a great deal about elaborate investigation and difficulty, but the people who are going to administer it by this time will be fairly experienced. Is it such a terrible thing for them to decide whether a thing is procurable at a reasonable price? They are the three supermen to whom the Government are committing the economic future of the country. They are charged with the duty of putting taxes at all kinds of levels on all kinds of categories of goods without the slightest instruction from the Government, without the slightest knowledge of any industrial plan of the Government, and without any knowledge of the aim of the Government.
I can imagine the difficult time they are having now when they consider that they have to do their best for the country, to carry out what the Government intend, what even the Home Secretary

intends, what the President of the Board of Trade intends, and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends. They must take this extraordinary conglomeration of mixed minds and try to get some least common denominator among them. I will not insult any particular Member of the Government by suggesting that he is the least common denominator or the greatest common factor, or whatever it may be. That is the task that you are setting them, and it is a mere bagatelle to ask them to say whether a particular article is procurable at a reasonable price. It is a very ordinary thing which any person of reasonable judgment could do. The hon. Member opposite suggests that you will have the foreigner striving to get below the price that has been decided. How is he to know what price has been decided? It is not for him to know at all. It is a matter for the committee to say whether it is procurable at a reasonable price or not.

Mr. PIKE: On evidence that I have submitted to them as a consumer.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not know where the hon. Member comes in at all. There is no question whatever of an elaborate inquiry. They have merely to consider whether it is procurable in the United Kingdom. I think the Government would be very wise not to tie the committee down so narrowly as not to allow any introduction unless the machinery was absolutely not procurable at all in the country.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 264.

Division No. 163.]
AYES. 
[8.23 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graves, Marjorie
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Albery, Irving James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peat, Charles U.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Applin, Lieut. Col. Reginald V. K.
Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pfn, Bilston)


Atkinson, Cyril
Hanbury, Cecil
Pike, Cecil F.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Potter, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Harbord, Arthur
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hartland, George A.
Pybus, Percy John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bernays, Robert
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsden, E.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hengage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ray, Sir William


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Braithwaite, Maj, A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. (J. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hunter, Capt. M, J. (Brigg)
Robinson, John Roland


Burghley, Lord
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jamieson, Douglas
Ruagles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Jennings, Roland
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cassels, James Dale
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jones Lewis (Swansea West)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. H. (Prtsmth., S.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell. Richard John (Eddisbury)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Kimball Lawrence
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Christie, James Archibald
Kirkpatrick William M.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Clarke, Frank
Knight, Holford
Salt, Edward W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lees-Jones, John
Scone, Lord


Colfox, Major William Philip
Levy Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Colville, John
Liddall, Walter S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lindsay Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Llewellln, Major John J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lockwood, John c. (Hackney, C.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Loder, Captain J. da Vere
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crossley, A. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Davison, Sir William Henry
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Major Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Maitland, Adam
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Dunglass, Lord
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Eady, George H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stevenson, James


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stones, James


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Elmley, Viscount
Milne, Charles
Strauss, Edward A.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Moreing, Adrian C-
Summersby, Charles H.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Templeton, William P.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, William Shephard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ganzonl, Sir John
Munro, Patrick
Train, John


Gibson, Charles Granville
Nail, Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)'


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)




Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Womersley, Walter James


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Wells, Sydney Richard
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Weymouth, Viscount
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wife, Alfred R.
Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move to leave out Knee 42 to 46.
His Majesty's Opposition are putting forward the Amendment in a spirit of inquiry like the lady in "David Copper-field" and really want to know the exact meaning of those particular lines. Under Section 5 of the Act all Empire goods come in free. They are not to be charged any duty whatever, but in Sub-section (2) it is stated that His Majesty shall have power by Order-in-Council to declare that the same process of allowing goods to come in free shall apply to any mandated territory. We want to know what is meant by the word "variation." If you make an Order-in-Council you say that it is a mandated territory and that the free list shall apply to it, and we can understand that it is possible to revoke the Order, but we want to know what the Government mean by varying an Order of that sort. If a territory is a mandated territory, and if, therefore, it is exempt from any duty, we do not understand the suggestion of the Government that such an Order might be varied.
We have undertaken those mandates, as the Government well know, in the spirit of a trust, and a very sacred trust. We are administering those territories, in the words of the Covenant of the League of Nations, because they are weak peoples which are not able to stand alone amid the difficulties of the modern world. They are people whom we have to take by the hand and lead gently into the path of civilisation and progress. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would say into the path of capitalistic civilisation. It is very necessary that that trust should be maintained in that particular spirit. The policy of the Government towards the mandated territories should be the policy of the helping hand, and not of the big stick, or of the vacuum cleaner trying to extract from those mandated territories oil, gold, mineral wealth, timber, etc. We do not want the Government to use the power which they are taking as a means of bargaining with the Mandated Territories in order to extract concessions
from them in return for allowing their goods to come into this country free. That would be absolutely against the spirit of the principle of mandate. We know that the Government are writhing in the toils of international capitalism but we do not want them to stamp on the liberty of these struggling people, towards whom we have taken this responsibility in the nature of a sacred trust. We have undertaken these mandates not in order to extract money from them, not, as foreign nations might say, in a spirit of hypocritical selfishness, but in a spirit of creative internationalism, and we are anxious that the Government shall give us some assurance that they will not use these powers afterwards to exact concessions from the mandated territories.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: It will be possible in a few words to clear up the difficulty. There is provision elsewhere in the Import 'Duties Act for varying any of the other Orders which are made, but there is no provision for varying the Orders in Council which are made in respect of mandated territories. That is simply an oversight and we are taking this opportunity of putting the oversight right. There is no power to revoke or vary Orders in Council made under statutory power. It would require specific legislation to alter any such Orders. There seems no reason why specific legislation should have to be undertaken in this particular respect, as it might in some cases give rise to delay.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What sort of variation is contemplated?

Major ELLIOT: It would be possible to vary an order to make easier the admission of goods, or to alter the rates of duty on certain goods.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Order in Council declares that the Section applies to a mandated territory. It is not a question of applying a duty. It merely is to say that a mandated territory is or is not within the Section. You cannot have it half in and half out.

Major ELLIOT: It is not impossible to conceive a case. Take the State of Iraq, which is at present passing out of the status of a mandated territory.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Revocation.

Major ELLIOT: That might be, but complete revocation might be undesirable, since a State does not pass suddenly from being a mandated territory to an independent State, and it might be desirable to vary such an Order which might be applicable to a mandated territory at certain stages of its evolution. It is cases of that kind which the Government have in mind. With regard to the point of the relation of mandated territories to the innovations in the fiscal system which this country is undertaking, that was debated at some length on the Import Duties Bill on the 23rd February of this year, and in reply to the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) I pointed out that the definition of British Empire upon which we were operating was the definition which had been adopted in the Finance Act, 1919, and had been used by successive Governments ever since that date.
I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the Government are going to depart from their admitted purpose of helping and not hindering these territories, but it is desirable that it should be possible for the Government to extend to these areas preferences similar to that which they desire to extend to the Colonies. It would be unfair to exclude them from the benefits of any markets at home which they might otherwise have had. Hon. Members opposite would be the first to complain if we excluded them. Consequently, for the purpose of bringing the mandated territories in so as to give them the benefits which we desire to give them we have made this provision. The purpose of paragraph (4) of the Resolution is to make it possible to carry out any variation in an Order as may be necessary. I have given the example of the State of Iraq, which is passing, although it will take some time, from the status of a mandated territory to the status of a fully developed State.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that the explanation given by the Financial Secretary is not very convincing. He tried to explain last night that a certain Colony was an excepted Colony. Perhaps he would describe himself as an ex-
cepted Financial Secretary—a Financial Secretary who is slowly emerging from that position into the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which no doubt we heartily agree. He is now trying to tell us that there is such a thing as an excepted mandated territory. He must appreciate the position that either a territory is mandated or it is not. The fact that there is an evolution going on in a mandated territory and that a type of Government is being developed so as to fit it as an independent nation does not affect the question whether at any given period of time it is or is not mandated. Section 5 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, makes provision for His Majesty, by Order-in-Council, to declare that this Section shall apply to a mandated territory. It gives him no power to declare anything else in regard to a mandated territory.
It either applies or it does not apply, and it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he might vary an Order so as to make it apply in part or not apply. He cannot say that it shall apply as regards raw material and not as regards a manufactured product, or vice versa. The only power that His Majesty has, by Order-in-Council, is to put a mandated territory in the same position as a Colony. He can do nothing else. Therefore, the only possible object of this proviso is to vary, because it is impossible to revoke. We object to the idea that these mandated territories should be given the status of Colonies and then, for some reason or other, it should be taken away from them and they should be made foreign countries. That is the only thing that can be done in this provision, and if a provision of this sort is inserted it will give rise to great suspicion in everybody's mind.
Why take this power? Due and proper thought is given to Bills which are put before this House, and it has been decided that a mandated territory should, by Order-in-Council, be permitted to clothe itself with the position of a Colony for this particular purpose, and now, on second thought, for some reason or other it is suggested that power should be given to take it out of that position, once it has been given that position. We recognise that if it ceases to be a mandated territory it will automatically fall out of that position. Unless the Financial Secretary
can give us some better explanation how he is going to vary or revoke without altering the status of a mandated territory completely—which we believe to be a wrong thing to do, once we have given them that status—we shall have to vote for these words being left out.

Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to fall into controversy with my hon. and learned Friend in this matter, especially as in matters of law he speaks with much greater authority than I can do, but I should have thought that the whole essence of a mandated territory was that they should gradually evolve into foreign countries. Take the case of Iraq which is applying for admission to the League of Nations. It may be desirable to draw up the Order-in-Council side by side with a time-table, so that the people in that country will be able to envisage the change that is taking place and make their commercial arrangements accordingly, but it is undesirable that these things should have to be passed by specific legislation in this House. Such Measures might be crowded out. I think we are really at one. A mandated territory does have access to British markets, and a mandated territory which is evolving into a foreign State will inevitably—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Automatically.

Major ELLIOT: Not automatically, but will inevitably lose its status as a mandated territory and lose accordingly its special access to British markets, and that we should have power to vary such Orders-in-Council, as we have power to revoke any other Orders under this Bill, is not unreasonable. The only difference between us is that the hon. and learned Member says that this change takes place suddenly, that at one moment the territory is mandated and at the next it is an independent nation. In fact, it will take some time. The difference is so small that I suggest it is not necessary to divide the House.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not quite understand the right hon. and gallant Member's attitude in regard to constitutional matters. He is the most extraordinary constitutional innovator that I have ever known. I have always thought that things were either definitely Colonies, definitely Dominions, or definitely mandated territories, but the
right hon. and gallant Member has made an innovation. Yesterday we had the case of Southern Rhodesia, which is not a Colony, which is not a Dominion, but which is in the process of evolution. Now we are told that Iraq is not a mandated territory, and not a foreign country. It is something in between. It may be that there are such strange anomalies in the constitutional world, but I cannot conceive of there being evolved an elaborate system of preferences so graded according to the gradual growth of these countries from one status to another.

Major ELLIOT: Has the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) ever heard the story of the lady who was asked: "Are you married?" "No." "Single?" "No." "What are you?" "I am a decree nisi."

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Member if he went into court and tried to argue a case of that sort, and suggested that alimony should be graded according to the strange position that he has suggested in the case of a married woman, would get away with it before the judge; and the right hon. and gallant Member cannot expect to get away with his proposal in this case. He is not very explicit. He gave us one instance of a country which is growing and changing, Iraq, which he says up to a point is a mandated territory not a member of the League of Nations yet, and therefore gets a preference in regard to certain products like oil. There is a definite status for a country. There is a time when a country is under a mandate, and there is a time when the mandate is terminated. There can be nothing in between. It is either a mandated territory or it is not. It cannot be half and half. I think he is going to get us into great difficulties with these constitutional innovations and I am wondering whether he is going to apply these strange theories in order to evolve some strange status for the Irish Free State.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBEET WARD and Lord ERSKINE were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. GROVES and Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM were nominated Tellers for the Noes.

The Tellers for the Ayes and one Teller only for the Noes being come to the Table—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would ask the hon. Member who was appointed to tell with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham) whether the hon. Member for

Hamilton did in fact act as a Teller in the Division?

Lord ERSKINE: The hon. Member for Hamilton did, in fact, act as a Teller in the Division.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In that case, I think, if the House is agreed, we may take the decision of the three Tellers.

Ayes, 279; Noes, 42.

Division No. 164.]
AYES.
[8.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eastwood, John Francis
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knight, Holford


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Law, Sir Alfred


Allan, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Elmley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Levy, Thomas


Atkinson, Cyril
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llddall, Walter S.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lindsay. Noel Ker


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Bernays, Robert
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mac Andrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Gibson, Charles Granville
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McCorquodale, M. S.


Blindell, James
Gledhill, Gilbert
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKeag, William


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Major Alan


Bracken, Brendan
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Graves, Marjorie
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Burghley, Lord
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromlay)
Hales, Harold K.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Milne, Charles


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Carver, Major William H.
Hanbury, Cecil
Morelng, Adrian C.


Cassels, James Dale
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, William Shephard


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartland, George A.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Munro, Patrick


Christie, James Archibald
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lleut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, 0. W. (Westminster)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Conant, R. J. E.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cowan, D. M.
Hornby, Frank
Palmer, Francis Noel


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Horobin, Ian M.
Patrick, Colin M.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pike, Cecil F.


Curry, A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Potter, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunter, Capt. M. J, (Brigg)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pybus, Percy John


Davison, Sir William Henry
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsden, E.


Dickie, John P.
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Donner, P. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ray, Sir William


Drewe, Cedric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Eady, George H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Remer, John R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Train, John


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Robinson, John Roland
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rosbotham, S. T.
Soper, Richard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Boss Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Stevenson, James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Salmon, Major Isidore
Stones, James
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Salt, Edward W.
Storey, Samuel
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strauss, Edward A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wise, Alfred R.


Scone, Lord
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Selley, Harry R.
Summersby, Charles H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Templeton, William P.



Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thompson, Luke
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Ward and Lord Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan




Graham.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. TINKER: Before the House agrees to this Resolution I think it is worthy of some comment. I am glad to see the Lord President of the Council in his place. Had he been paying close attention to the Division Lobbies this evening he would have noticed that on these Resolutions the numbers voting for our Amendments have grown. We have only a party of about 46 in this House and yet in one Division we bad nearly 70 votes for one of our Amendments. Anyone listening to these Debates might wonder what had happened in the past. Members of the Liberal party apparently find that they have no understanding whatever of these five Resolutions and are wondering whether they had not been led astray. Particularly in reference to the Amendment dealing with foodstuffs it would appear that the Liberal Members have not a clear understanding of
what it all means and it is because of that fact that we wish to impress upon the House the actual meaning of that Fifth Resolution. The Resolution reads:
That it is expedient to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, in the following particulars, that is to say "—
Then it goes on to mention that what we understand to be the Free List shall be put in the hands of the Commissioners, who will have power to remove any or all of the articles from the Free List. Many of us on this side felt that the Free List did at least protect some things and that some of the articles in it gave the poorer section of the community some standing against the imposition of food taxes. If the House to-night agree with the Fifth Resolution, they are accepting the position that this Commission can in future, without the control of this House, as I understand it, impose taxes.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. TINKER: The Debate will probably clear up that point, and that
is why we want a thorough Debate, to see what the Resolution really means. I think it means that if to-night the House agree with the Fifth Resolution, it will allow these Commissioners to say, "We will take from the Free List, for instance, grain and meat," and then a tax can be put on them without any Debate in the House of Commons. If it does mean that, then the House of Commons is handing over powers given to it by the people to a selected body which cannot claim that right. We see the danger in this, and that is why we are so much agitated. We do not like the idea of this matter being removed from the full discussion of this House. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury tried to tell us that it would not be as bad as we are expecting and that it does not say that there will be a tax, for instance, on meat, but once we lose control, following on the lines of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who said that he has been returned for the sole purpose of protecting agriculture, it will mean that pressure will be brought, inside the Tory party ranks, that all these taxes must go on to their fullest extent; and it would be unfair to the working of this House if we were to allow it to go through without a protest.
I take some courage from the voting list to-night, because in one Division Lobby, strange to say, we had with us a Cabinet Minister and several Under-Secretaries, which to me showed disaffection in the Ministerial ranks, and if we only keep on this pressure, this agitation, there will not be the security on which hon. Members count for four or five years. I can see them cracking up in 12 or 18 months. What would happen to the Liberal party then, God in heaven only knows, but they will be worse off then than now, when several of them occupy positions here for the time being. However, there is time for redemption for everybody, and I hope they will see the error of their ways, not only on this matter of food taxes, but in all matters connected with the National Government. You cannot have a foot in both camps. Calm and even minded as is the Lord President of the Council, I think he must be feeling perturbed at what he has seen to-night. I look upon him as one of the great philosophers of the House, saying, "Well, things will right themselves
in time," but I do not think he can allow things to go on much longer as they are. For the good of his own party, he will have to say, "You cannot have it every way you want." I trust that he will come to a decision one way or another with some of the members of his own party, who are called members of his own party for the time being. They will not do him any good, and if he intends to get on without them, now is his opportunity to tell them to get out of the way.

Mr. BATEY: I join with my colleague, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in opposing this Resolution, which is one of the most astounding Resolutions with which this House has ever had to deal.. I venture to think that if we search the records of this House, we shall not find an experience like this. The justification given for the Resolution is that it is expedient to amend the Import Duties Act,. 1932. Why, the ink is scarcely dry on; that Act, yet here we are spending the time of the House in seeking to amend the Act. I know that we shall be told by the Financial Secretary, "Ah, yes, but this Resolution is brought in because of a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Import Duties Bill." But that pledge was given because, when the Bill was drafted, the Government had not made up their minds to take this course. If they had made up their minds before drafting the Bill, they would have provided for this.
Clearly, they did not think, when they drafted the Bill, of pursuing a policy like this, and I hold that to come to the House of Commons so quickly after the passing of that Act in order to amend it, is a thing the like of which is not within the recollection of the oldest Member of this House. The Government ought to have known what policy they were going to pursue and to have avoided a position like this. I am certain that, if any Member on this side had risen and suggested that there should be an amendment of the Import Duties Act at this time, the answer of the Government would have been, "What, only seven weeks since the Act was passed, and you want us to amend it? The thing is ridiculous. Give the Act a fair chance, and let it be in existence at least 12 months before you seek to amend it." That would have been the answer that
we should have got. They are in this, as in everything they have done since they have taken office, unable to make up their minds, not knowing what course to take or what policy to pursue, and it is that which lands them into the position in which we find them to-night.
I join with the Members of this party in objecting to an Advisory Committee of three advising the Treasury in this matter and the Treasury then making an order. It is not sufficient for the Financial Secretary to say, as he said to-night, that the Advisory Committee will simply advise the Treasury, that the Treasury will make an order, which will lie here for 28 days, and that within that time the House will have the chance of discussing it. It is the first steps that are the dangerous steps in matters of this sort, and we know from our experience of the House that, once the Advisory Committee makes a recommendation to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone can decide to make an order. On the decision of one man, that order will be made, and it is never easy for this House to set aside such an order. My colleague has been talking about some of the Members of this House who have been voting against the National Government, but let an order be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and let any of the Members of the Tory party—I will not say the Liberal party—venture to vote against that order when it comes before the House, and we shall witness what we witnessed during the last Tory administration. Some of the Tory Members will have their whip stopped, and they will have some difficulty in getting back into the fold. [Interruption.] The same thing would apply to the Labour party, although some of us voted against the Labour Government without having the whip stopped.
This Resolution gives to the Advisory Committee the dangerous power of making recommendations to reduce the Free List or to add to it. When the list was made it consisted of five or six items alone. As the Bill was going through the House, it was increased five or six times under the pressure which was brought to bear upon the Government. We are afraid of this power being given to the committee lest the
committee should make a recommendation that meat and wheat should be taken out of the Free List, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept the recommendation and make an Order. The Government were steadfast when dealing with the Import Duties Act in their opposition to taking meat out of the list. It is essential that those of us who come from distressed mining areas should be jealous that no advisory committee should have the power to take meat out of the list. Our people have had their bread taxed by the Government; they have had their tea taxed; and I believe that they have even had the table upon which they take their breakfast taxed by the Government. We now see the danger of the Government going a step further and, on the advice of the Advisory Committee, taxing meat. There is an important gentleman in the north of England this week, and we read in the northern Press that he is simply shocked with the poverty in the northern areas. Yet the Government by back-stair methods are going to tax the meat of the people who are already impoverished.
The Lord President of the Council dared not have gone to the country at the last election and boldly said that the Government would tax meat. The Prime Minister did not say it when he was seeking election. He talked in quite a different strain. The Lord President of the Council would remember the experience that he had in 1923 when he went to the country with Protection and the country turned it down. It was because the country did not realise the very subtle game which the Government were playing last October that there are so many Members on the other side of the House. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that he told his people that he was in favour of taxes on food and that the urban constituencies were in sympathy with the agricultural constituencies on that. I venture to say, however, that no one dare go to urban constituencies in industrial districts and say that. There are Members of the Government who came from the north of England who made it clear in their election speeches that they were opposed to the taxation of food, and yet we shall find Tory Members going into the Lobby to-night
and taking the initial steps, which are the dangerous steps, for the taxation of food.
The materials for shipbuilding were included, not in the Free List, but in the Import Duties Act itself, and I would like the Financial Secretary to tell us whether these materials will be excluded from consideration by the Advisory Committee. It was rumoured in the north of England that that Section was put into the Act because of the President of the Board of Trade who had had a little interest in shipbuilding, and I want to ask if shipbuilding materials are to be the only thing which will not be in danger of being taxed on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The Government did what I consider was one of the best things they ever did when they put wooden pit props in the Free List. They will now, however, be in danger like the other articles in the Free List. We object as strongly as we can to giving this Advisory Committee of three men power to make recommendations to take things out of the Free List. The Government dared not, when they were passing the Import Duties Act, take meat out of the Free List. They were afraid then of the effect it would have on industrial classes. Not daring to do it then, they are now doing it in this roundabout way so that they will be able to lay the blame on the Advisory Committee for a thing that they dared not openly do themselves.
We find that this Resolution also deals with a scheme to be drafted for drawbacks of any duties chargeable under Part I of the Act. Surely if there were to be drawbacks, the Government should have been able to say so when the Import Duties Act was passed. I consider that it is far better not to have drawbacks. You should either have a tariff or not. Once we have a tariff, it is one of the objections to the practice of drawbacks that more often than not it is a question of influence. More influence is brought to bear upon the Government with each scheme that is made, and the more we shall see the drawbacks enlarged. One also objects to the Resolution because of the third part, which proposes to have machinery included in the list of omissions for certain reasons. It is difficult to understand why this should be
done. It deals with any machinery which can be made in a foreign country but cannot be made in this country, and yet one knows how easily it is to argue and bring influence to bear on the Government by saying that it is not possible to procure a particular class of machinery in this country, and therefore foreign machinery has to be bought.
If we are to have tariffs, have them and be done with it. If we are to have Protection, let us have Protection above-board and not Protection which can be influenced by certain interests. Members of the Government always say that we are under the influence of the Trades Union Congress, but there is no question that this Government, from its very start until the time it goes out of power, will be subject to the influence of the Federation of British Industries. Members of that federation will be coming to the Government and saying they want some machinery which is not procurable in this country, and therefore they want permission to buy it abroad. We have men in this country who can make as good machines as can be made in any foreign country. If we are to have tariffs, let us have tariffs and not loopholes that will give an excuse to certain people to get behind the tariffs. This is one of the worst Resolutions this House has ever been asked to consider. There is more to be said against it than there is against most Resolutions. It is one of the most reactionary Resolutions, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. HANNON: I am sure that the whole House will wish to dissociate itself from the suggestion that the hon. Member has made that the President of the Board of Trade has any personal motive whatever in that matter. [Interruption.]

Mr. BATEY: That is what I call hitting below the belt. It is just about the most unmanly thing I have known any hon. Member do, because the hon. Member knows I made it perfectly clear that the President of the Board of Trade had no interest in shipping at the present time.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: When the hon. Member was addressing the House, he made specific reference to the interests of the President of the Board of Trade in the shipbuilding industry. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's observations was that
in the advice which he would give in preparing the Import Duties Regulations involved in the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade had some personal motive. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I only rise to say that suggestions and innuendoes of that kind should be reprobated by every Member of the House. The hon. Member also made allusion to the effect of this Resolution upon the taxation of imported machinery and machine tools. I agree we can make machine tools in this country which are comparable in quality and efficiency to any in the whole world. Does the hon. Member want this machinery to be produced by foreign countries? Is he willing to give people employed in this country the fullest opportunity?

Mr. BATEY: You have not read the Resolution.

Mr. HANNON: Is he willing that our people should have the fullest opportunity of competing on a comparable basis with those in other parts of the world? This Resolution, instead of being the vile, terrible and dangerous act of legislation which it has been described, is, in point of fact, one of the most hopeful and helpful suggestions embodied in legislation for a long time. I hope very much, in spite of the extraordinary speech made by the hon. Member, that the Resolution will be adopted.

Mr. CURRY: We ought not to pas this Resolution without appreciating the significance of its effect upon our future legislation. A few months ago we passed an Act which was very far reaching in its consequences, and which changed the whole of the fiscal system of the country. In so doing we attached to that Act a Free List which we debated item by item, and upon which we spent a great deal of time in order to find out how we could secure the protection which we on these benches regard as the most important of all protections, namely, the protection of the consumer against operations of less public-spirited persons. If this Resolution passes in its present form, it will remove from the purview of this House the whole of the Free List and so we shall be reducing those very serious and somewhat heated Debates to the level of a farce. After having debated all those items on the Free List, we are wasting our
time, and we shall be giving to persons nominated by the Government, but in no way responsible to the people, the power of saying to what extent and upon what articles the people of this country shall pay taxes.
In my view, that is so far-reaching a thing that it should not be allowed to pass without very serious thought. It seems to me that we are giving up the privileges for which this House has stood throughout the centuries, the privilege that the elected people shall have the power to declare to what extent the people shall be taxed. We have had the question of tea cited from the Front Bench in the course of the Debate. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that tea was on the Free List, and we have already removed it from the list. No one is seeking to dispute that the House is the paramount authority in the matter of taxation, but it is just because the House has reserved to itself the right of removing tea from the Free List that we think the House should reserve to itself the right to remove all these other things from the Free List. More than that, whatever may be our opinions upon the effect of our taxation and our legislation, I think every hon. Member feels the responsibility that rests upon his shoulders, as the elected representative of tens of thousands of people, of saying in what direction we shall go. It will be regarded as unwise that the House of Commons should ever have thought of divesting itself of the power of controlling great fundamental changes, and it is a fundamental change to give another body power to tax the staple foods of the people.
We are a great industrial people, living on a small island, densely populated, depending, as we have done for many years, upon the resources of the world for our food. We should not, as the elected representatives of those people, give to any other body the power of declaring whether our food shall come into the country free or taxed. It is because I feel the great significance of what we are doing that I implore the House to think long before taking this step. It is no use saying that this is no proposal to tax, we know it is not; but it is a proposal to give other people the power to tax, to give up the privileges
which it is our duty to preserve unsullied and to hand on to those who come after us.
Many of us are concerned with the tendency which taxation is showing to-day. There are some who believe that the incidence of indirect taxation falls too heavily upon the poorer people, and others who believe that direct taxation falls with too great weight on the industries of this country. But whichever way the balance of the argument lies, that matter is so important that it ought to be reserved for the decision of this House and this House alone. When we give to any advisory body the right to remove untaxed articles from a free list and to put them into a list of taxed articles we are handing over to them the power to determine the ultimate tendency of the taxation of this country; we are giving to an unelected body the right of saying in what proportions our revenue shall be raised from direct and indirect taxation; we are giving to an unelected body the power of saying by what means, eventually, our Budgets shall be balanced. If we pass this Resolution as it stands I think history will declare that we have made a great mistake, and have given up a privilege which we were elected to defend.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I rise to say a word or two upon what I regard as one of the most significant things this House has been called upon to do since it met after the General Election. As I have sat here, it has occurred to me how extraordinarily difficult it is to divest oneself of the atmosphere of unreality which exists in this Chamber, to try to think back to the homes of the people, to the cottages of the poor, to try to translate into terms of reality what we are doing under this Resolution. The boredom and cynicism which are bound to affect one's psychology when this House is discussing things for hours on end are one of the defects of the House. The atmosphere ceases to be representative of the reality of the things with which we are concerned. Let me recall to hon. and right hon. Members a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told a crowded House that the limits of direct taxation had been reahced, that the Income Tax payer could not be called upon to pay any more than he was paying now; that such was the impoverishment of the
Income Tax payer that if additional taxes were levied there would be a progressive decline in the revenue from those taxes. Will any hon. Member on the Treasury Bench argue that a person has two funds out of which he meets his expenditure? Does he pay his Income Tax out of one pocket and buy his food with the money in the other pocket? Is it not perfectly true to say that if the limits of direct taxation have been reached, and we move to indirect taxation, that what we really do is to tax the same income, although we have already declared it can suffer no further taxation?
Who will have to pay this tax? It is true that everybody consumes meat and flour and bread, but meat and flour form a much higher percentage in the budget of a workman's family than in that of a well-to-do person. But this House is cynical and hardfaced. I have heard an old Parliamentarian say that the present House of Commons is infinitely more callous and more indifferent to the claims of the people than was the late Coalition House of Commons. Since we have been here we have been engaged in passing what has been predominately Conservative legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"!] But hon. Members opposite did not go to the country as a Conservative party, they went as a National party. They went to the country to save the savings of the people, and under the banner of equality of sacrifice. Ever since this House met it has been attempting to transfer the burden of maintaining the structure of the State from the rich to the shoulders of the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Piece by piece, step by step, item by item the House has been doing it ever since it met. First it taxed the poorest seats in the cinemas. Are poor people to be denied their pleasures? Is it a bad thing for an unemployed man or a workman, after working all day— [Laughter.] I congratulate hon. Members on their sense of humour. I thought I said an unemployed man or a workman who had been working all day. The reception of that remark is typical of the attitude of mind of hon. and right hon. Members. They think they can look forward to a period of 4½ years in which they will not have to consult their constituents. But the time will come! Nemesis will overtake them eventually! All Parliaments start off in that mood
of optimism, they all think that everything in the garden is lovely, that having befuddled and befooled the electors once they can do so again; but the time will come when hon. Members will have to answer for what they are doing to-day. It seems to me to be a serious thing, much more serious than hon. Members opposite seem to appreciate, that the position is being made worse by misrepresentation, because hon. Members are going on public platforms and saying that the country is passing through a grave crisis—

Mr. HANNON: On a, point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the fact that the question we are discussing is the Resolution dealing with the Import Duties Act.

Mr. BEVAN: We are not only discussing those duties, but we are discussing giving to the Advisory Committee the power to recommend tariffs on food. It is quite true that the House is attempting to discuss this question in a way intended to hide its proper significance, and, if hon. Members had the courage of their convictions, they would bring forward these proposals before the House in the ordinary way. By these proposals the Government are interfering in our domestic affairs. This power is being given to the Advisory Committee to save the face of the President of the Board of Trade, and of the Home Secretary, in order that these tariff proposals may be put into operation with a semblance of national unity. I enter my protest, not merely against the procedure which has been adopted, but also against this important departure from the fiscal history of this country and against this attempt to unload the burden of taxation

on to the shoulders of the poorest of the people.

Many poor people are trying to exist on an allowance of 15s. 3d. per week. In my own constituency 50 per cent. of the workers are unemployed, and a very large number of them are chargeable to the poor rate. In these circumstances, is it not absolutely callous, and in the last degree a defiance of humanitarian principles, that we are not leaving the incomes of these poor people untouched, but we are transferring to them a large proportion of the cost of maintaining the structure of this country?

The policy being pursued by the Government is a revolutionary propaganda which is undermining the people of this country and undermining our democratic institutions. To-day the Government are the revolutionaries, and, if this kind of thing goes on for another 4½ years, there will not be a majority for Nationalist or Conservative candidates at the next election, but you will find the people driven by poverty and despair to adopting shorter methods for the solution of these problems. I know the Government have a huge majority, and they can laugh at us. They can walk through the Division Lobbies and defeat us, but they will have to pay the bill eventually. Our numbers are small, and we cannot make the Government afraid. We know that we are hopeless to defeat the Government in the Division Lobby, but I have every confidence that, in the near future, Englishmen and English women will treat this cowardly Government as it deserves to be treated, and turn them out at the first opportunity.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 56.

Division No. 165.]
AYES.
[9.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Carver, Major William H.


Albery, Irving James
Boulton, W. W.
Cassels, James Dale


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Castle Stewart, Earl


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Braithwaite. Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atkinson, Cyril
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Browne, Captain A. C.
Christie, James Archibald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burghley, Lord
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Postsm'th. C.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jamieson, Douglas
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Colman, N. C. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U,


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Robinson, John Roland


Cooper, A. Dulf
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kimball, Lawrence
Rosbotham, S. T.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knight, Holford
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Crossley, A. C.
Leckle J. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lees-Jones, John
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Dawson, Sir Philip
Levy, Thomas
Salt, Edward W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Donner, P. W.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Savery, Samuel Servington


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Duckworth, George A. V.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Selley, Harry R.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonol
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Eady, Georoge, H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Eastwood, John Francis
Lymington, Viscount
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elmley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Emmott Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Emrys-Evans P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smithers, Waldron


Entwistle Cyril Fu'lard
McLean, Major Alan
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervilie D G. (Willesden, East)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Soper, Richard


Evans Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maitland, Adam
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fuller, captin A.G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major, J. D, (New Forest)
Stevenson, James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Milne, Charles
Stones, James


Goff, Sir Park
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Storey, Samuel


Goldle, Noel B.
Moreing, Adrian C-
Strauss, Edward A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Graves, Marjorie
Morrison, William Shephard
Summersby, Charles H.


Grimston, R. V.
Moss, Captain, H. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Tate, Mavis Constance



Munro, Patrick
Templeton, William P.


Gunston, Captain, D. W.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thompson, Luke


Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hanbury, Cecil
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.
Train, John


Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Harvey, Major S. E. Devon, Totnes)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Henderson Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Weymouth, Viscount


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pike, Cecil F.
Whiteside, Borrat Noel H.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Potter, John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pybus, Percy John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hornby, Frank
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Horobin, Ian M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsden, E.
Wise, Alfred R.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Womersley, Walter James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ray, Sir William
Worthington, Or. John V.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)



Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
and Mr. Blindell.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bernays, Robert


Aske, Sir Robert William
Batey, Joseph
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)




Briant, Frank
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cowan, D. M.
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charlas
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
 Groves.


Tenth Resolution agreed to.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 7, after the second word "be," to insert the word "earned."

Major ELLIOT: I am willing to meet the hon. Member by accepting his Amendment, and perhaps, in view of this, the discussion may be shortened.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession. Now that he has accepted this Amendment in the case of uncovenanted pensions, I should like to say that an Amendment will be introduced to bring covenanted pensions within the earned income allowance, so that it may apply to both covenanted and uncovenanted pensions.

Major ELLIOT: I will consider that point. For the moment I will simply go as far as accepting the Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. MANDER: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary for more explanation of what this means. Does this concession make any difference to the revenue? Would the pensions in any case have been treated as earned income? The House ought to be told exactly what the effect, if any, of the Amendment will be on the revenue.

Major ELLIOT: I am advised that the drafting would apply in any case to earned income, but I wish to put the matter beyond dispute. Therefore I have accepted the Amendment. Since the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke, I have consulted my advisers, and I understand it also applies to covenanted benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, as amended."

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary one question in two parts. When a firm pays a pension to an employé will that firm be able to deduct the pension from its taxable income for Income Tax purposes? When an individual pays a pension will that individual be able to deduct the Income Tax from the pension so that the pensioner can obtain a repayment of the deducted tax from the Inland Revenue?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I wish to sound a note of warning. Hitherto it has been the practice not to charge Income Tax upon payments which are voluntarily made. So far as I am aware this is the first breach in that general principle. The idea behind it may be perfectly sound, namely, that if you have a pension which is paid to you under some form of contract, you have to pay tax upon it, and that if by some understanding it does not amount to a contract so that the pension is voluntary, you escape. You are getting two classes of persons, one of whom is paying tax and the other not. I suggest that the principle of taxing voluntary payments, which will be introduced if this Resolution is carried into law, is one which is likely to have very considerable effect on people who at present are held not to be liable to pay tax.
There is one other point. As the law stands these voluntary payments are in the nature of annual gifts which are made by employers and can be discontinued at the end of any one year. There is just a danger that if the subsequent legislation merely follows the line of this Reso-
lution, it will be possible easily to evade this by not making the payment as payment of a pension, but making it in the nature of a gift in one year expressly as a gift, which at present would not be taxed. Therefore the situation might very well be that the legislation would be open to evasion by the very class of person whom it is expressly desired to hit by this Resolution. I am certain that that needs only a little examination and possibly a little tightening up. It is desirable that we should make it plain that payments voluntarily made in the nature of pensions ought to be taxed, and we ought at the same time to be certain that we are not by our language leaving the new provision open to evasion, so that in the next Finance Act we may be obliged to have one more of those provisions which have had to be so often inserted in the past to prevent evasions by people who seek to get rid of the liability to a tax which this House desires that they should sustain.

Major ELLIOT: In reply to the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts), firms may deduct these payments. As for individuals, it depends upon circumstances. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), that matter will be dealt with in the Clause, and when the Clause is reached will be the proper time to review the language and see whether or not it covers what we have in mind.

Orders of the Day — EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to make provision by Act of Parliament with respect to the following matters: —

(1) the establishment, under the control of the Treasury, of a fund (in this Resolution referred to as ' the said fund ') for the purpose of strengthening the currency and checking undue fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling;
(2) the issue to the said fund out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and fifty million pounds, as the Treasury may determine;
494
(3) the transfer to the said fund of all the assets of the Exchange Account;
(4) the authorising of the Treasury, for the purpose of providing for the issue of the said sums out of the Consolidated Fund or for the repayment to that fund of all or any part of any sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under and for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, and the authorising of the Bank of England to advance to the Treasury any money which the Treasury are so authorised to raise;
(5) all such incidental and consequential matters as may be necessary or expedient in connection with the said fund, and in particular—

(a) for transferring from or to the said fund to or from the Issue Department of the Bank assets equivalent to any depreciation or loss, or appreciation or gain, arising in connection with any assets in foreign currency held in the Issue Department, by reason of variation in rates of exchange;
(b) for transferring from or to the said fund to or from the Issue Department, on the purchase or sale of any gold on account of the said Department, assets equivalent, in the opinion of the Treasury, to the difference between the value of the gold as required to be calculated for the purpose of the accounts of the Bank and the price in fact paid or realised therefor;
(c) for making good to the said Issue Department out of the said fund any loss, not exceeding eight million pounds, sustained in connection with the credits raised by the Bank on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-one;
(d) for declaring the law as to the securities which may be held in the Issue Department;
(e) for the winding up of the said fund."

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) there shall be published by the Treasury each month a, statement showing the total assets in gold and in foreign bills or currency or securities held in the fund.
I base myself largely upon the report of the Macmillan Committee in moving this Amendment. During the last few years it has become the habit in this House for the Government to appoint expert committees to advise them on important matters of State policy as they arise. It is a habit that was indulged in, perhaps, to excess by the late Labour Government; and it is a habit which is
certainly being continued by the present Government. In certain technical and complicated matters like this it is no doubt a good habit; but I suggest that if we do appoint these expert committees, and if they come to unanimous conclusions, it is just as well that we pay a little attention from time to time to their reports and what they have to say. I should like to read a relevant passage in the unanimous report of the Macmillan Committee on this subject. It is paragraph 413 under the heading "Foreign Balances and Foreign Liquid Assets held in Sterling":
We attach first-class importance to these figures being collected as comprehensively as possible and published. We recommend that the Bank of England should be charged with the duty of collecting these statistics to the best of its ability. We think that the figures are more likely to be accurate and complete if the returns for individual institutions are treated by the Bank of England as confidential, only the aggregated results being published. We attach importance to these results being made public at monthly intervals. In the long run the advantages to confidence and prestige of the figures being known will far outweigh any supposed advantages from suppression. We believe that a knowledge of the figures which we have collected relating to recent periods would have increased confidence if they had been known at the time. No doubt, if the amount of the gold reserve had not been published hitherto, some fears might be entertained as to the results of publication. So it may be in this case. But for those who would stand high in the world's estimation, the greatest candour and readiness to submit to publicity are now required. Moreover, it is exceedingly desirable that the principal data on which the Bank of England bases its decisions should be generally known.
If that recommendation is not explicit, I do not know what is. There has been a very great deal too much secrecy and mystery in the past about the whole of the currency and monetary policy pursued by this country, which it is now becoming generally recognised is of vital importance, going to the very roots of our whole economic and social life. The Financial Secretary is now asking us to give him direct authority to borrow £150,000,000 for the purpose of managing the currency. He has told us he is unable to give us any information as to the policy he is going to pursue. He has told us explicitly that the management of this fund is to be entrusted to the Bank of
England. Some of us have not as much confidence in the wisdom of the Bank of England in these matters as others; but, in any case, to ask for a loan of £150,000,000 and to tell the House that it is to be handed over for management to the Bank of England and then, not only to give no information as to the general lines of the policy to be pursued, but no information about the state of the fund whatsoever, is rather a tall order. How is greater control by this House over public expenditure likely to be obtained if we give the Government authority to borrow £150,000,000 without requiring them even to give us information as to the state of the fund from time to time? It is of course undesirable to publish the day-to-day transactions of the exchange equalisation account. We do not even ask for a weekly report. But once this exchange equalisation account is set up, it absolutely nullifies any value that the weekly bank return may have hitherto had so far as giving information as to the balance of payments is concerned.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member say specifically what it is that he wants?

Mr. B00THBY: If the hon. Baronet read the Amendment—it is only a couple of lines, and if he applied his mind to it it would not take more than a minute—he would see exactly what I mean.

Mr. ALBERY: I have read the Amendment—

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: So have I.

Mr. ALBERY: —and I do not think it is clear what the hon. Member requires. The Amendment says:
there shall be published by the Treasury each month a statement showing the total assets in gold"—
That appears to be one figure—
and in foreign bills or currency or securities.
That would appear to be another figure. It is not clear whether the hon. Member requires an aggregate figure to cover the lot, or two figures to cover gold and foreign securities, or five or six figures.

Mr. B00THBY: I thought that from the Amendment it would be clear that we would wish to see both. We want
to see the figures both in regard to gold and the other securities' named in the Amendment, and also, naturally, we should require to see the aggregate figures. We want to see, in fact, a monthly statement of the position of the fund, so that it will be clear to the traders and commercial people of the country, and everybody else concerned, including the House of Commons, what the position of the fund is from time to time. I do not see how we can ever know how the balance of payments of this country are going unless we had a statement of the kind. We are ready to agree to a quarterly, or even a biannual statement being made if the Government prefers. We adopted a monthly statement, because it was the specific period of time recommended by the Macmillan Committee.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise only to ask for information, because some of us have not the Macmillan Committee's report by us. The hon. Member states that the recommendation of the Macmillan Committee was that balances in a fund like the Equalisation Fund should be made public; whereas in the memory of some of us who read the Macmillan report, it was that the balances held here by foreign institutions, such as the French balances which were held in sterling in London, the under-estimate of which was the cause of part of the trouble, should be ascertained. It has nothing to do with the balance of the Equalisation Account. The hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, but, speaking from memory, the Macmillan Committee referred to a different matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is really nothing before the House yet. The hon. Member is only moving his Amendment, and hon. Members had better wait until the Amendment is moved before they make their speeches.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I feel more like being in the witness-box under severe cross-examination than speaking in the House of Commons. I read copiously from the Macmillan Committee's report, and I cannot very well read any more of it because if I do we might be here all night. But I would also refer hon. Members to paragraph 218, and to further paragraphs at a later stage dealing generally with the question of informa-
tion and publicity. I read paragraph 413 to apply to our holdings in foreign balances as well as to foreign balances in this country as information with regard to which, if we possess it, the maximum amount of publicity is desirable. I suggest that if there is one question upon which this report lays the greatest possible stress all through, and especially in its final recommendations in Part II, which are very comprehensive, it is upon the necessity and desirability of the maximum amount of publicity being given to all the figures of foreign balances, and that those statistics should be published from time to time by the Bank of England.
But to revert to my main argument, I would say that to come to this House and ask for a loan of £150,000,000 and to refuse to give any information whatsoever about the state of the Account of which this loan is to be the basis, is, I think, asking us to bite off rather more than we can be expected to chew. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment in favour of a monthly statement of the position of the Account in detail, and in the aggregate, I ask him to give us an assurance that we shall be given some information of some kind, not only as to the state of the Account from time to time, but as to the general policy which is being pursued. It cannot be emphasised sufficiently that this sum of £150,000,000 is a tremendously powerful instrument to place in the hands of the Treasury and the Bank. It might be used to carry through a policy of violent inflation or a policy of equally violent deflation. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that. I think he will also agree that, whether he can accept the actual terms of the Amendment or not, it is not unreasonable that this House before granting this vast sum of money with such infinite potentialities for good or bad, should have more information as to the use to which it is to be put than has hitherto been vouchsafed to us.

Mr. BRACKEN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and myself are rather disadvantaged to-night by the absence of that stern unbending economist the right hon and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) whose name appears in the principal position in con-
nection with the Amendment. He drafted the Amendment on the Floor of the House and asked us to give our names to it. It is an admirable Amendment in every way, and we both urge it. We do not apply to it the higher textual criticism which is so characteristic of the late Minister of Labour, a criticism which he has applied with singular success to the present Front Bench and to his immediate successors. It is no use in this Debate impinging ourselves on mere small points. On the whole, the Amendment is reasonable. I do not agree with my hon. Friend in saying that it is a moderate Amendment. I think it is too moderate in some respects.
What is the Government's justification for this obscurantist proposal? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in one of his most agreeable speeches, told us that the publication of regular statements would defeat the object of the Fund, and that it would give away our position to those who desire to operate against us. He also told us that the Government had a great strategic plan which led them to embark upon new practices and new methods of procedure. One feels rather doubtful when one hears Ministers talking about great strategic plans. It reminds one of what Disraeli said about a comprehensive plan of Mr. Peel. He said it was a sort of popkins plan. To a large extent this plan may be described, I will not say as a popkins plan, but as a plan of a name very similar to popkins. The Government flatter themselves that the technique they are adopting to prevent a rise in currency is new, but it is not new. It is a most aged and pedestrian procedure. It has been adopted by a lot of countries. It has been suggested by Socialist newspapers—not by the "Daily Herald" but the "Forward." The only thing one can say of it is that it is both pretentious and clumsy.
10.30 p.m.
The secrecy with which the Government desire to involve this plan is certainly not new. It is well within the recollection of the House that the Macmillan Committee, which the Government set up, at great public expense, and which has been blessed by a constant succession of Ministers, strongly recommended that certain statistical information should be available to the central
banks of the world, and yet this Government, who bore part of the responsibility for the setting up of the Macmillan Committee now proceed to scrap altogether the report of those gentleman who worked so long and so laboriously to supply them with facts in regard to finance and banking. It seems to me that this policy is an exact fulfilment of the very worst features of the obscurantist currency policy of the last 10 years. Nothing has done more harm to the Bank of England and the Treasury than the shroud of mystery with which they have enfolded the elementary secrets of their operations. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen has given us a learned quotation from the Macmillan Report. I will read a little from a newspaper with which the President of the Board of Trade has had some connection, the "Economist." In the current number, on 23rd April, the "Economist," commenting upon this report, said:
While no one would wish to hamper the Bank in the ticklish business of attempting to restrain the vagaries of a free currency, there is an even greater danger to be feared from a policy of secrecy. Nothing has done more to undermine public confidence in the policy of the Bank than the air of mystery with which its proceedings hare frequently been surrounded. Whatever their charters may say, Central Banks are public institutions with a national responsibility. Our own Bank is far behind other leading central banks in the extent to which it takes the public into its confidence. If we are to have a managed currency for some time to come, it will only be possible for management to be effected successfully if market forces automatically come into play to correct fortuitous aberrations of the exchange. The system will never be successful or inspire confidence if a single performer who knows the facts plays a lone hand against the great mass of buyers and sellers of foreign exchange working in the dark. This question, which may seem to be a minor detail, is really of very far-reaching importance, and deserves very careful consideration by the authorities. It is admittedly not an easy matter to settle, but we sincerely hope that the Treasury and the Bank will consider what can be done—both from the point of view of enabling market forces to be a help and not a hindrance, and also as an example to the Central Banks of the world.
If the Government will ponder over these words they will realise the retrograde policy to which they are committed by withholding this vital information not only from the traders of this country but from the central banks of the world. One
is brought back to the eloquent remarks of the Financial Secretary (having acknowledged the copyright of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he talked about the sterling convoy. To-night he is asking us to put a dense fog around the sterling convoy to ensure that the rest of the ships will be lost in the depths of the ocean. We are asked to adopt a policy of refusing statistical information. To pretend that currency is such an involved subject that no one can understand it who has not been in the Cabinet for two generations or who is a high pundit in the City of London or a great scholar like the boo. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). And we are asked to commit ourselves to this policy on the authority of the august individuals who have directed our currency policy during the last 10 years. I do not want to say anything offensive about these gentlemen, but I must say that one requires a quotation from Swift to sum up their activities. They have had "the misfortune to be perpetually mistaken."
The policy of the gentlemen who have conducted our currency during the last 10 years is in striking contrast to that of one European statesman, who has carried through the greatest stabilisation policy which the world has seen in this century, M. Poincaré, who was faced with difficulties far greater than those with which our Front Bench are faced to-day. He authorised the Bank of France to publish in great detail the whole of their holdings in gold and devisen. If he had thought that that would encourage international speculation he would never have sanctioned the publication of the statistics. The Government would do well to follow the example he set. Secrecy is, to a large extent, the breeding-ground of speculation. If you wish to encourage speculation, you will wrap all your affairs in mystery. That is what the Government are doing. This is a friendly Amendment, and is so reasonable that I feel that the Financial Secretary, or whoever is going to reply on behalf of the Government, ought willingly to accept it. We do not want Great Britain to appear as a country which is doing its best to encourage that appalling economic aggression which is bringing the world into misery, if not into disaster. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to accept this very moderate Amendment. If the right
hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme were present, I feel sure that he would put up an admirable case on behalf of the Opposition for some concession of this kind in regard to these vital statistics.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On general principles I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that the more statistics are published and the fuller they are the better. I have refreshed my memory my looking at the Macmillan Committee's report and recommendations, and I find that Section 413 of that report says:
We attach first-class importance to these figures"—
that is various kinds of statistics—
being collected as comprehensively as possible and published.
The report goes on to say that as regards most of the British banks, figures are available, and, it adds:
The most important omission is that of sterling bills held in their own portfolios by foreign institutions, whether located in London or abroad.
In other words, the omission which they thought most important and the supply of which they regarded as most necessary was the amount of sterling bills held by foreign institutions, whether those sterling bills were held in London or abroad. I think it was regarded as common knowledge that the general amount of sterling bills held by foreign institutions and other starling obligations was something Eke £200,000,000 That was what was generally thought, but, part of the trouble which came upon this country was due to the fact that the actual figure was found to be very much higher than had been supposed. Consequently this is a particular omission, the supply of which is of the greatest importance because by that means it would be known how much of a drain there could be, at any moment, upon sterling.
That, however, does not at all prove the case of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen with regard to publication of a very different kind, namely the publication of the amount in the Equalisation Fund at any moment. If I may refer to the precedent quoted by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) as to the final stabilisation of the French exchange by M. Poincaré, I do not think that it supports his con-
tention either. I think it is a. matter of tolerably common knowledge that the operations needed to keep the French exchange steady, involved comparatively small amounts in themselves. It was probably the psychological effect upon the people who might have wanted to operate on the exchange, which was most important. If that is so, there is a real case for the amount of money in the Equalisation Fund not necessarily being published at any given moment. I do not think, therefore, that the Macmillan Committee lends weight to his contention, and the history of what happened with the French exchange makes it likely that it would be better for the amount in the Equalisation Fund not to be made public. If I have misrepresented him, perhaps he will correct me.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that the Macmillan Committee could not have referred to the Exchange Equalisation Account, because it was not then in being. I was basing myself upon the general plea, which seemed to me very forcible, and the argument in favour of it was the maximum amount of statistical information being made available. I would ask my right hon. Friend to refer also to paragraph 218 of that Report, and most of all to paragraph 425, which is a really formidable plea for information of every sort or kind.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On general principles, that, I think, is perfectly true. On general principles the fuller statistical information there is, probably the better it is for everyone. Of course, the Macmillan Committee wrote before our experience of the present troubles, but they put their finger on the danger that there might be, a danger which in fact proved very great; but it does not follow, because it is as well to know the amount of the danger that confronts you, that thereby you ought to make public the whole of your resources which might be used to meet that danger. I can well imagine that the commander of an army might like to know precisely the amount of danger confronting him, but it does not follow that if he has to try to meet that danger, he necessarily wants to make the whole of his resources at every point public, I think that is the real answer
to what I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said. What we want is a fund to meet the danger if it arises. From that point of view, I should have thought that the less publicity given to it the better. It is true that there may be an engine put into the hands of the Government at any moment which may be an engine of vast power. On the other hand, if the object of the Government is to keep the exchange steady, then it will stand to be judged and condemned most severely if it uses its power unwisely, either so that while it means to keep the exchange steady, it does not do it, or if it uses it contrary to the trust imposed on it, either to inflate or deflate when steadiness would be the best policy.

Mr. GEOFFREY ELLIS: During the last two or three days, from an orthodox point of view, there has been such a harlequinade of financial heresies running through this House that some of us who have lived in the normal course of the business of exchange and banking would like one or two simple assurances from the Minister who is going to reply who, I understand, is to be the President of the Board of Trade. The expression "management of the currency" has been repeatedly used. We were under the impression that so far as inflation or deflation of the currency was concerned— that is, the internal currency—that was already provided for strictly under the existing Acts, and we were also under the impression—and this is what we should like an assurance on—that this management is a management of the exchanges primarily to meet the temporary difficulties from which the country is suffering, that the Government probably, like any other Government, looks to the recovery of trade in the future as in itself settling a great many of these problems, and therefore that we are dealing to-day with a financial expedient which is to meet exceptional circumstances.
If I am right in assuming that, the question takes on a very different aspect from that which has been put forward by my two hon. Friends behind me. For long enough it is obvious that the Treasury and the Bank of England have been working together. Everyone has
known that during the War and ever since the War, and it is obvious from the conditions that exist to-day that that joint management has to go on even to a greater extent. It has now been, through the action of the Government, announced to the whole world that this position is regularised. Not only is the position regularised in order to prevent the speculation which is committing such havoc with our exchange and upsetting our trade, but the Government has announced that it will at any moment take, if necessary, a credit up to £150,000,000.
I submit to the Government that the whole of this question is so difficult and intricate that to make a regular announcement of what they are going to do will probably greatly affect what they desire to do. Every business man dealing with a question of this sort would regard it as a matter in which the utmost secrecy has to be preserved throughout. It is true that if you wish for an annual statement you can have it, and ought to have it, but do my hon. Friends appreciate that if they are given a report one morning of what happened during the last month, it will be a return of the last day, which will be just as effective on that day as if you had a daily return of that day. The Government should take their courage in both hands and say to the country, "Trust us, let us do our things in our own way, and judge us by the result."

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The intervention of my hon. Friend in this Debate has been a real service to the House. He has drawn from his own practical experience in the simple exposition which he has given of the matters which appear to be so complicated to the rest of us. He has made it quite clear that if the desire of my two hon. Friends were met by the Government, and we were once a month to publish the figures of this Exchange Account, we would in fact be giving a daily return for one day in the month. That may sound a very small matter, but when you are dealing with sums which may run up to £175,000,000, and when you are well aware of the fact that there is not a single fluctuation in exchange in this country which is not of the most extreme concern to every financial centre in the world, to every bank
and to exery exchange speculator, it is obvious that that information which you give, say, on the 30th of the month, will be of value to them and will help them in their speculations at the very time when we want to do everything we can to eliminate speculation altogether. In these circumstances, I feel sure that even my hon. Friends will admit that that will be carrying candour a little too far.
The next point which I would put to them is this. Pushing the exchanges up and down is a matter of vital concern not only to the bankers but to the editors of the financial papers. The hon. Member attributed to me the ownership of a paper; I do not know whether he was referring to the fishing page of "The Field," but I cannot satisfy him with any guidance on these matters from any of those great pundits. I can say quite emphatically, however, that if we were to show in our account that there was a large holding of foreign currency in this country, and if at the same time there appeared to be a rising exchange, you would have speculators coming in at once to take advantage of a further rise. Exactly the opposite would happen in the reverse circumstances. The fluctuation would work both ways. We should be giving guidance to the speculator, and the honest trader would suffer in order that the speculator might flourish. I am sure my hon. Friends have no intention of that sort and have no desire to allow the market to be used to the detriment of British industry and commerce.
Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word about the general working of this scheme, which appears to many of us to be the most important feature of the whole Budget. It is certainly a most novel scheme, but although it is novel that does not necessarily mean that it is going to be a reckless experiment. It has sound reasoning behind it, and that sound reasoning is based, to some extent, on past experience. This is not the first time that the British Government have found it necessary to look after their interests in foreign currency. It had to be done during the War, and after the close of the War. If we had not taken steps then, this country would undoubtedly have suffered to an enormous extent. It has so happened in the last 12 months that our foreign exchanges have once more been put in a condition of great
oscillation. There was an enormously heavy trade balance against us which became apparent last autumn, but which we have now, to a considerable extent, regularised. There was grave danger there that we were losing the very backbone on which a good sound exchange could be built up. As we have restored that strength, we must look in other directions to deal with currency problems.
Our exchange troubles became more marked when we went off gold. Do not let us, when talking about the exchanges, mix them up, as my hon. Friend did to-day and some hon. Members did during the last discussion, with the problem of inflation and deflation. As I see it, there is only one way in which this transaction would be likely to have an inflation or deflation effect. If the Government were to go in for borrowing heavily on Ways and Means, that might quite easily mean a great deal of inflation, but I cannot imagine that the Government and the Bank of England are going to reverse their policy. It is hardly likely that they would do otherwise than borrow on Treasury bills or by special loans. I cannot say definitely what line would be taken, but, speaking as one who is not a member of the Treasury Board, I can only say, as an outsider, I should guess they would be much more likely to borrow by way of Treasury bills than in any other way. Borrowing by Treasury bills is not inflation when you use the proceeds of these bills in order to purchase foreign exchanges which have a definite value. That is undoubtedly a different thing from the Government going to the Bank of England and borrowing on Ways and Means, which simply means that the Government are increasing their overdraft, with all the disastrous results which flow from that.
I would like to point out to the House that there is really no new departure in the secrecy which is incumbent on the Treasury if they are to deal with this matter efficiently. It is not the only case in which it has. been found necessary not to make regular returns, but to make returns over a fairly long period. For instance, the investment of the funds of the Post Office and the Trustee Savings Banks is in the hands of the
National Debt Commissioners and particulars of the investments are published, but they are dated a long time after the actual date to which they refer. It would be quite impracticable to publish weekly returns of stocks held, and publication annually has always been accepted by this House and its predecessors as a reasonable arrangement. I suggest that publishing the particulars of the operations of this Account a long time after the Account is the utmost the House should ask for—the utmost; and even that ought to be done with very great caution. It is not as though we could act without acquainting the whole world of what is being done. There is no form of publicity which is so great as that which is given to money values. You "B.B.C." important facts all over the world the moment you publish them in some of those invaluable financial organs in the City, or in the House of Commons by way of question and answer. The really essential thing is that the House and the country should believe that the trust which has been put in the Government has not been abused, has not been misused, and that in the very great trust placed in them the Treasury have acted with discretion as well as with honour.
I would only point out in conclusion that this matter is far from being one which is of no vital concern to the industries of the country. We are suffering at the present time very great difficulty in our manufacturing businesses, in the course of commerce and in the manipulation of our shipping by the immense fluctuations which are taking place all over the world. We are in such a plight now that with these continual oscillations going on in every hemisphere, in every financial centre and in every port, no man managing ships can tell beforehand what amount he will actually have to provide out of the earnings of the ships for the payment of dues. No merchant can tell exactly what he is going to receive for goods which he may have sold at any one time when the exchange may have fluctuated in the course of a single week by 10, 12 or 15 per cent. No manufacturer is able to make up his costs until he knows definitely the actual amount he has to provide in hard cash for the planting out not only of his labour and the purchase of his raw materials,
but also for his selling costs when he sends his goods abroad. These are all requirements of the very first moment to industry and commerce. They are not merely a matter for pundits discussing what they mean by currency problems. It is not a matter to be discussed under the head of "Money." It is the very means of livelihood of British industry and commerce. It is because the Government were alive to the interests of the case that they embarked on this new departure, and I trust the House, in sanctioning this new departure, will put full trust in those whose policy they really approve of, and into whose methods they must not inquire with too much publicity.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I think the Government are making an extraordinary demand upon the confidence of the House. That appeal may fall readily on the ears of their loyal supporters, but it leaves me, as a member of the Opposition, completely cold. The cry is "Trust the Government." I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Ellis) on having so readily and so easily received the approbation of the Government. One saw the smile of beatific pleasure dawning on the face of the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member finished his very "brief speech, in which he did not use any of the technical knowledge which we all know he possesses, but which finished up with the peroration "Trust the Government." The right hon. Gentleman has finished with the same peroration. There is only one way of answering that. Governments do not live for ever, not even the present one. They have not got eternal life, and the present Government seem to be setting up in what seems to me to be an international book-making business. That is the meaning of this loan. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on the last occasion when we discussed this subject, twitted me with not having acquainted myself fully with the facts. At that point I had acquainted myself with all the facts that were available, except the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made that day, and since then I have acquainted myself with what additional facts there were on this subject. Now I know exactly as much as the Government know as to how they are going to operate this scheme. As I understand
it, they are going to adopt a job which is carried through by every bookmaker in this country. They are going to try to square the book periodically, and they are going to see how all the bets are lying all over the world and then they will take odds or lay odds according to what the squaring of the book seems to demand.
The Conservative party, and the supporters of the Government generally, may readily respond to the appeal to trust the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Lord President of the Council are making the book. I have already said that this Government is not going to last for ever, and I can imagine another Government coming in. Imagine the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself gambling away with £150,000,000. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that that would be too awful to contemplate, but I do not think so. It is not so very long ago since the present Prime Minister and the present Lord Privy Seal were in a more insignificant minority in this House than we are. I remember that in 1918 they were vacated entirely from the House of Commons, and it was only a matter of five years after that we were occupying these seats. It may be so again. The £150,000,000 may not all have been drawn by then and there is no knowing what might happen. I believe that the real credit and stability of the nation would be much safer in the hands of people like ourselves than the people who are at present occupying the Treasury Bench. I say that with perfectly genuine sincerity, because we happen to know precisely what we want to do, and I am quite sure that the Government do not know.
To take up the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend quite seriously, I wish to say that they have argued the case quite well. The Government are regarding this £150,000,000 Exchange Equalisation Loan as a weapon against foreign countries. My hon. Friends, in asking for world publicity, are regarding it as an instrument for world equalisation in currency matters, for open and fair dealing as between nation and nation, and not for the nations of the world trying secretly to get a financial
advantage over other nations. The proposal here is: "We want to have something up our sleeve to gamble with against the gambling of other nations." That is not the need of the world to-day. The need of the world in financial matters is open, fair and square dealing between nation and nation, putting your cards and your currency on the table before the eyes of all men. As long as you are afraid to do that, you will not have that confidence of the world which hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Bench say is necessary for the solution of the world's problems. I do not believe that any solution of the currency question is to be obtained along those lines.
The Government themselves, having thrown overboard, I suppose with the full assent of the Bank of England, their particular form of Gold Standard worship, are out, as they say, with the intention of extending as far as possible the sterling area of the world. [Interruption.] I am willing to appreciate the faintest touch of humour from any quarter of the House, but I do not think that the interjection of "Russia," which is always made whenever any one of us is speaking, is sufficiently up to date to justify even a smile. You have a number of people in the sterling area now. The policy of the Government is to extend it. What intelligent nation is going to come in and anchor its financial difficulties to Britain's if as a nation we have some secret hoard, some secret game of our own, which we are working, keeping all information about our resources secret from everyone else. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the request of my hon. Friends for full publicity—and the difficulties of it are not so great as the President of the Board of Trade tries to make out—should be accepted, and that Great Britain

should cease the attempt on which it is now embarking to become the 'cute, clever gambler that is going to outwit all the other nations with which it proposes to trade.

Mr. HOROBIN: In asking the Government to reconsider this matter before it is too late, I want to say that no supporter of the Government can feel indifferent to the plea that the publication of information of this sort would be contrary to public policy; but the very power of that plea puts a great responsibility on those who make it. The information which is now asked for is given week by week by every central bank in Europe. Is it pretended that the Bank of England is weaker than the Reichsbank or the Bank of France? This Fund is similar to the Exchange Standard Reserve of the rupee, which is published. It is impossible for the Government to pretend that to give this information is going to bring sterling to the ground. This Amendment cannot be pressed to a Division now, but I ask the Government to consider the matter very carefully, and, before it is too late, to see whether at an early date they cannot give this information, which is asked for, not only by many Members of this House, but by the most responsible investigation which has yet taken place into the financial future and policy of this country.

Mr. BRACKEN: As the Proposer and Seconder of this Amendment have not a clear majority to-night, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 277.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[11.11p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bracken, Brendan
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llaneily)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Albery, Irving James
Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris, John Patrick (Sallord, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gillett, Sir George Marterman
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Apsley, Lord
Gledhill, Gilbert
Morrison, William Shephard


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mulrhead, Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Patrick


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Goldie, Noel B.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grimston, R. V.
North, Captain Edward T.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Bernays, Robert
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormiston, Thomas


Blindell, James
Hales, Harold K.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Patrick, Colin M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Peat, Charles U.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hanley, Dennis A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Harbord, Arthur
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hartland, George A.
Pike, Cecil F.


Briant, Frank
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Potter, John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Broadbent, Colonel John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pybus, Percy John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Brown, Col. D. c. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ramsden, E.


Burghley, Lord
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hornby, Frank
Ray, Sir William


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cayzer, sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reiner, John R.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Christie, James Archibald
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
James Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, John Roland


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Colville, John
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross, Ronald D.


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cook, Thomas A.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Croft, Brigadier-General 8ir H.
Leckle, J. A.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Crossley, A. C.
Levy, Thomas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Curry, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Salt, Edward W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunlifle-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Scone, Lord


Drewe, Cedric
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Selley, Harry R.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Eady, George H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Eastwood, John Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major Alan
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Elmley, Viscount
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Stevenson, James


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stones, James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Milne, Charles
Strauss, Edward A.




Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wise, Alfred R.


Templeton, William P.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Womersley, Walter James


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Weymouth, Viscount



Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Train, John
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sir George Penny and Major


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
George Davies.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyen
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) the appointment of a committee representative of all sections engaged in industry to advise the Treasury as to the control of the said fund.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stressed the importance of the fund to the industry of this country and the extraordinarily important effects it may have upon industrial life. The Financial Secretary, when he was speaking on Monday last upon the matter, said:
This fund, which is closely connected with the House of Commons, is a fund about which the House will have a great deal more to say than it has had to say in the past regarding other things which were specifically removed from its purview by Statute"—
That, I presume, was the control of the Issue Department of the Bank—
but if and when it becomes possible to have a superior committee to the Governors of the Bank of England, then we shall all be very pleased to see it, but, as far as we can see at present, such a commitee amounts to a miniature House of Commons".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1932; col. 152, Vol. 265]—
and, therefore would not be desirable. We do not appreciate why, if this Committee is so desirable, it is not practicable at the present moment. The Government are setting up, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said, a machine which has been tried in other places but which, as far as this country is concerned, is entirely new. It is specifically stated in the Resolution that the Treasury intends to maintain the complete control of the fund. That is to say, that although it will be administered by the Bank of England, as we understand the policy, the ultimate control will reside in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Cabinet and so in the House. In view of the vital interest which industry must take in the policy which is followed out in the management of the fund, it is only fair and proper that the Treasury should be able to have
the advantage of the advice, in consultation on matters of policy—not, of course, on day-to-day administration, which will be in the hands of the Bank of England—of some of those who are concerned with industry.
It is a proposition which has received already a very considerable support in the House. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that he warmly welcomed the suggestion and that it was eminently desirable and practicable, when he spoke in the House on Monday night. Criticism of the Bank in regard to their management during the last few years of the exchange position has been voiced by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who spoke the other evening. I could not see any reason in the speech of the Financial Secretary the other night why such a committee should not be set up. I could understand him saying that it would not be practicable for such a committee to administer the Fund. That is not the suggestion. Everyone who has come into contact with people in the industrial world has become familiar, toy direct talk and through articles in the Press, with the very general complaint, and in some cases distrust of the wisdom of the Bank of England in administering these matters. Our suggestion is that in this matter, where industry has complained so bitterly during the last 10 years, it would be a wise policy for the Government to show that they are concerned not merely to assist the financial interests of the country, but that they are determined to assist the industrial interests, and that they will seek their advice and opinions on these matters which affect them so vitally. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to accept the Amendment and incorporate in the Finance Bill some provision for setting up such a committee.

Major ELLIOT: When I said to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that if we could see a better Committee than the Governors of the Bank of England we should be delighted, I meant what I said; but I do not think that we have got one here, nor the suggestion of one. If the hon. and learned Member were given the task of drafting the terms of reference for such a committee and he selected the personnel of the committee, I wonder whether, when he had completed the task, he would not tear up the list, and say: "This is not a committee that I could reasonably recommend to the House of Commons." I am sure that he would do that. I should be very interested if, between now and the drafting of a Clause in the Bill, he would bring forward such a committee as the one he has in mind, examine it from the purely personal point of view, and say whether he thought it would be superior to the Committee which is managing these affairs.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the right hon. Gentleman will put the Clause in the Bill, I will certainly do what he asks.

Major ELLIOT: We have heard of buying a pig in a poke, but to buy a clause which does not even contain a pig is asking too much on trust, even from a private Member, let alone the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I can assure him that it would lead to my instant dismissal from my office by the Lords of the Treasury, who are scattered about this Front Bench. It seems to me that the position in which the fund stands is not fully appreciated. The House of Commons through its officers, the Lords of the Treasury, is already closely connected with the general policy of this fund. The Government cannot divest themselves of responsibility for the policy upon which the fund is operated. The Government will certainly be responsible for all that happens in connection with the fund, and they will certainly have a free hand in the selection of their agents. Such a committee as is here suggested could no more authorise or carry out the swift and private transactions which will be necessary than it could conduct a campaign in the field. When a campaign is in progress, Parliament has the right
to deliver its ideas as to the objectives which it wishes the soldiers to attain. If Parliament attempted to in-11.30 p.m. terfere with the campaign, if it constituted itself an advisory committee to advise the officers in the conduct of the campaign, it would certainly bring it to ruin.

Mr. MAXTON: What about the War Cabinet?

Major ELLIOT: The War Cabinet were the officers of this House, responsible to this House and if the War Cabinet had taken upon itself to tell the soldiers what to do it would have lost the War. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members not to treat this matter humorously because we are dealing with a subject of very great importance, and I wish to treat the hon. Member's suggestion seriously. The advice which is to be given and the policy which is to be pursued are of the greatest importance to the ordinary wage earners of this country, and those responsible should be responsible to Parliament. Parliament cannot divest itself of the responsibility. The Committee which is suggested by the Amendment would not conduce to the attainment of what hon. Members opposite have in view.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. and gallant Member hardly does himself justice in his reply, and especially in his extraordinary fallacious comparison between conducting a war and conducting these financial operations. He tells us that Parliament is to have control, but for the last half hour he has been assuring us that nobody is to know anything at all about this fund. The House is to have complete control but we are to know nothing as to the securities that are held, we are to have no information. He says that the controllers are to be the officers of the House, and he mentions the Treasury. Junior Lords of the Treasury, who are strewn so profusely about the House, are there for the purpose of keeping hon. Members to their duties, and I have yet to learn that any Junior Lord of the Treasury takes any part in deciding policy.

Major ELLIOT: There are other Lords of the Treasury besides Junior Lords. The First Lord of the Treasury has a great deal to say about policy.

Mr ATTLEE: I was taking them seriatim and dealing with the Junior Lords first. I am aware that they sign their names but not that they do anything else. The First Lord is certainly responsible, but I do not think the right bon. and gallant Member will claim that the Treasury is in close touch with industry, and we are expressing the view that the control of this fund should be in the hands of the people representing industry The right hon. and gallant Member also says that the agents of the Government are to be the Bank of England. He was not at all clear as to the functions of a War Cabinet, a Commander-in-Chief, or a General Staff. Is the Bank of England the General Staff or are they the commanders in the field? I want to get the analogy of the right hon. and gallant Member right. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opinion, the Government conducting the war, or the Commander-in-Chief or the Chief of the General Staff. I want to be quite clear on this point. In a modern war you do not leave it all to the soldiers, and the right hon. and gallant Member if he reads modern books will find that the policy of leaving it all to the soldiers is denounced, particularly in the case of Germany where Ludendorff gave great cause for complaint because he did not take other people into consultation. War is a matter in which you have to consider industry and labour, and a great many other matters. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is conducting this campaign for the benefit of the whole of the people, we suggest that an advisory body of this nature, on which would be represented something other than the narrow financial interests of the City, would be extremely valuable. He expressed that view in his own speech but declared that he was quite unable to form such a body. We, on this side, are quite willing to put forward suggestions for the composition of the body, if he is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment said he wanted to have on this body people representing industry in this country. What warrant has he to say that the people representing industry wish to have such a committee? The Associa-
tion of British Chambers of Commerce, a representative body with which I have the honour to be associated and a meeting of which I attended only to-day, has expressed no such wish.

Sir S. CRIPPS: My authority is the President of the Board of Trade who has just said to the House that the industry of this country is vitally interested in this matter and people generally like to have some say on matters in which they are vitally interested.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I can speak on behalf of an important body of manufacturers in saying that they will not thank hon. Members opposite if this Amendment is passed. Those concerned in industry are perfectly content that the arrangements of the Government should proceed, as they are proceeding. On an earlier occasion they felt compelled to express their resentment at the constant attacks which were being made upon the management of the Bank of England by spiteful people and Sir Gilbert Vyle stated their views in a letter to the "Times." There was in the speech of the Mover of the Amendment a veiled attack upon the Bank but industrialists will not regard that as anything for which to thank the hon. Gentleman opposite, who doubtless have great merits but have not, I think, much to do with productive industry.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I have run a factory with 6,000 employés which is I think as big as anything the hon. Gentleman has run.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I have worked in a factory which is more than the hon. and learned Gentleman has done.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I have also worked in a factory.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I have made my living in a factory. I hope the Financial Secretary will recognise this as an officious Amendment put forward by people who are rushing in to interfere in things which they do not understand. I ask the Government to stand firm and reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 252.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[11.38 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Half, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McKeag, William


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton


Albery, Irving James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Major Alan


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Apsley, Lord
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Aske, Sir Robert William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fuller, Captain A, G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gibson, Charles Granville
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gledhill, Gilbert
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chisw'k)


Bernays, Robert
Goldie, Noel B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Blinded. James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shephard


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bower. Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hales, Harold K.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Bracken, Brendan
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hanbury, Cecil
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Briant, Frank
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harbord, Arthur
North, Captain Edward T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartland, George A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Browne, Captain A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ormiston, Thomas


Burghley, Lord
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Captain Osbert


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horobin, Ian M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Cayzer Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pike, Cecil F.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Potter, John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pybus, Percy John


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Colfox, Major William Philip
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsden, E.


Colville, John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kimball, Lawrence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, James S. C, (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leskie, J. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Curry, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, John Roland


Dawson, Sir Philip
Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, S. T.


Donner, P. W.
Liddall, Waiter S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duggan, Hubert John
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dunglass, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mac Andrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.




Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stevenson, James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Scone, Lord
Stones, James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Storey, Samuel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Suteliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Templeton, William P.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wise, Alfred R.


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Womersley, Walter James


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Train, John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Sir George Penny and Major




George Davies.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [21ST APRIL].

Resolution reported,

AMENDMENT OF LAW.

"That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise, but not including the Law contained in the Import Duties Act, 1932, save as may be provided by any other Resolution passed in, the present Session), and to make further provision in connection with Finance.'"

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to raise a point as to whether this Resolution is in order. As I understand it, this is an amending Resolution, and it is an attempt to control the rights of the House in dealing with legislation. We found a Bill on a Financial Resolution, and an attempt is made here to say that with regard to certain parts of the Resolution, whatever the House does will prevent any Amendments, other than those actually in the Resolution, being dealt with by the House when the Bill is before it. I submit that when a Financial Resolution has been passed and a Bill founded on it, although Amendments to the Bill cannot go outside the Resolution, there is no power to control the House in moving Amendments which are within the Resolution. I submit that this Resolution is out of order on those grounds.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that this Resolution is out of order. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the Budget Resolution limits the Bill since the Bill is founded on the Financial Reso-
lution. The Budget Resolution always limits what can be put into the Bill. In other words, nothing can be put into the Bill outside the Resolution on which it is founded. This Financial Resolution appears similar to other Resolutions in that respect.

Mr. ATTLEE: I submit it is entirely without precedent on a Budget Resolution on which we are founding the Finance Act. While, of course, I entirely agree that the Amendments cannot go beyond the Financial Resolution, does that, therefore, preclude any Amendment whatsoever being moved which is not absolutely contained in the Financial Resolution? If that were so, it would mean that the Bill must be textually the same as the Financial Resolution. I submit that in this Resolution the House is entirely tied with regard to certain Sections of the Finance Act, and it is practically useless to raise any discussion on the Bill itself, because by this Resolution the House will have tied itself so that it cannot move any Amendments whatsoever with regard to the Import Duties Act of 1932 except what is in this Financial Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be in order to move any Amendment to the Bill which would go outside the Resolutions on which the Bill is founded.

Captain CROOKSHANK: While agreeing, of course, with the general tenor of what you, Mr. Speaker, have said, may I put it to you that this Financial Resolution goes further than the mere financial point? By its wording it does definitely make a new departure in the procedure of the House. I submit that Amendments should not be ruled out of order because of the words
save as may be preceded by any other Resolution passed in the present Session.
That would preclude the right of the private Member from taking any part in the financial discussions on the Bill in the way of moving new Clauses or any discussion of that kind, because it is obvious that no private Member would be able to move a Resolution dealing with financial matters. That is in the hands of the Government. Therefore, if the Government do not move any other Financial Resolution, we are tied by the Resolutions referred to in this Resolution, and to that extent this is a distinct change in the ordinary procedure of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: It must be remembered that, although this might be not in accordance with some of the former Resolutions, the Committee has already agreed to this Resolution, and this is merely the Report stage.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Even if a Resolution or an Amendment has been discussed and passed, and it is then found after some discussion that it is out of order, surely the fact that it has been discussed and passed does not bring it into order but still leaves it out of order?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Further to that point of Order, this Resolution was never discussed by the Committee. It was one of the many Resolutions put through on Budget day, although it is not a matter of urgency. It is in an entirely new form, and it was quite impossible for any one in the House at that time to take any objection or to raise the point.

Colonel GRETTON: My recollection is in accordance with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. The Committee passed the Resolution without any examination. I am advised that the effect of the Resolution would be to deprive private Members of the right that they ordinarily possess to move Amendments to Bills which come under the terms of the Resolution. The only power remaining to private Members would thus be to accept or to reject the proposals of the Government. If I am rightly advised, by passing the Resolution the House deprives itself of the rights always
possessed to amend proposals submitted to it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that that is the case. As I have said before, Budget Resolutions always limit what can be done by the House in the way of amending the subsequent Bill founded on that Resolution. This case is not different from any other in that respect.

Mr. ATTLEE: If that is so, surely there would be no reason for this exceptional step. Financial Resolutions have always limited what the House can do on the subsequent Bill, and the fact that here we have something entirely different and new shows that it deals with something beyond the Financial Resolution, and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) states that this is an entirely new departure.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me to be quite in order.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words "but not including" and to insert instead thereof the word "and."
This Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with the one following:
in line 3 leave out the words from the word '1932' to the word 'and' in line 4.
After what has been said, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the point, which is not a party point. The Resolution was brought up at a late hour, when no one expected such an innovation in the early stages of the Budget discussions, and the effect of it is that private Members in all parts of the House are going to be deprived of their rights.

Major ELLIOT: The suggestion that in Committee this Resolution was brought forward at a late hour of the night and rushed through does not square with the facts. This is a Ways and Means Resolution which was left open for two full Parliamentary days. It is not true to say that it "was hurried through in the usual rush of resolutions which are put from the Chair at the end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on Budget day. This is the Resolution which is held open to give the House the right of discussing these things. The next point of the hon. Member's complaint is that we are limiting the right of private Members. It is quite true that it is withholding from the House the discussion of the Import
Duties Act, 1932, and the opportunity of putting down new clauses in order to tax more things under that Act or remove things from its scope. Yet the hon. Gentlemen who are now supporting that complaint are the same Members who only an hour or so ago were complaining bitterly that any alterations whatever were being made in that Act, were begging the House to reject Amendments which had been put down to carry out undertakings given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the passage of the Act, on the ground that the Act having once been passed no further alteration ought to be made. An hour or two later they come down and complain bitterly that no opportunity is to be given to go through in detail every Clause of the Act and to alter every provision.

Mr. ATTLEE: The point is that the Government are introducing Amendments to the Import Duties Act, 1932, but this Resolution, when embodied in the Finance Bill, would preclude the House from discussing the Government Amendments.

12 m.

Major ELLIOT: I said that the only Amendments which were being introduced by the Government were Amendments to carry out undertakings given during the passage of that Bill. Those Amendments and the reasons for them have been debated at length in the discussions only recently concluded. The Opposition suggest that the Government are doing something unfair by bringing forward a Motion that it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt and to customs but not the law contained in the Import Duties Act. Is it not the case that Budgets have been introduced without any Ways and Means Resolutions making it possible for the House to discuss the Customs provision of the country at all? The Budget of last year contained no such Resolution. We desire to leave it open to the House to discuss these things and to disturb as little as possible the arrangements come to under the Import Duties Act, 1932, in which we had the support of the Opposition and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House.
Let me ask the House, apart from the Opposition, to consider the effect if these
Amendments were accepted. It would then be possible to go over again almost the whole ground gone over in the Import Duties Act and the new Clauses which, by reason of the guillotine Resolution, could not then be discussed. Could that be carried through without a guillotine Motion, which would limit the opportunities of the House for discussion much more strictly than it is proposed to limit them by the reservation in this particular case? We are trying to get through the Budget of the year without a guillotine Resolution, which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not succeed in doing last year. They introduced a guillotine Motion on the Budget and limited the opportunities of the private Member much more strictly than is now proposed under this Resolution.
The guillotine would be necessary for the great affairs of State on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the House are to embark. The Chancellor of the Exchequer with the consent of the whole House is to go to the International Conference at Lausanne. That takes place in June and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to complain if, owing to the Budget discussions running on, it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attend the discussions at Lausanne. We should be accused on every side, and particularly by them, of omitting to use the full force of the country in coming to a settlement of these international questions. Even the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) could not limit the desire of his friends to take part in discussions over the Import Duties Act, and they would extend to such a length that it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get away to Lausanne. To get the proceedings on the Finance Bill concluded early in June, it will be necessary, either to have the limitation of this Resolution, or to have a very stringent Guillotine Resolution, and we ask the House to accept this Resolution. [Interruption.] The precedent is the Autumn Budget of last year, when no Ways and Means Resolution such as this was put down. Surely a precedent for not allowing the House to discuss Customs arrangements at all is at any rate a precedent for a limitation of discussion. [Interruption.] I ask the
House to consider, not abstract quibbles, but the practical point as to how the Budget is to be got through with the least infringement of the rights of private Members. The solution of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was to put on a stringent Closure by compartments; the proposal of the Government now is to leave the Budget discussions open to the free run of debate in the House, but to ask the House not to review again the Import Duties Act, which has been so recently passed; and on that proposal we shall be perfectly willing to meet discussion in the House.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has hardly done him self or the National Government justice in his speech. He has admitted that this is a new form of Guillotine, without precedent in this House. He produces as a precedent for this Resolution an occasion on which there was no Resolution at all—surely a rather feeble precedent. The House was never acquainted with the fact, and it was never suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the two days Debate on the Budget, that a Guillotine Resolution was included in it. We are perfectly justified in saying that this Resolution was put through the Committee stage without the slightest indication that it was intended to be an alternative to a Guillotine Motion. There was not a Member in the House, even on the Front Bench opposite, who knew that this was a Guillotine Motion, with the possible exception of those who were responsible for it.

Major ELLIOT: Surely it is not a Guillotine Motion. I never said it was, and I can say now that it is not. It is an alternative to a Guillotine Motion.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I prefer to call a spade a spade, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman liked to do the same. The Resolution is put down in this form in order that it may have the effect of a Guillotine.

Major ELLIOT: Not at all. I deny that absolutely.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said earlier that this was an alternative to a Guillotine, and presumably, therefore, it is desired that
it shall have the same effect. It is in tended to cut out from the discussion on the Finance Bill certain matters, in order to shorten the time, and the House was never informed of that when the Resolution was going through Committee. It was not until nearly mid night to-night that it was discovered for the first time.

Captain CROOKSHANK: No. I made reference to it last Thursday.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. Certainly I do not think that many people in the House had noticed, until this evening, the effect of the Resolution, and from the discussion on the point of Order it was clear that the House generally had not been aware of its effect when it was going through Committee. We say firmly that this form of Resolution, which is entirely new, is quite un warranted unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has some better reasons for it than those which he has given, namely, that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are both busy people and have to get away from the House as soon as they can.
There has been no suggestion of obstruction on this Budget or on any of the matters that have proceeded in this Parliament—unlike the proceedings of the last Parliament, when there was organised obstruction against the Budget throughout. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that the two cases are not comparable cases. If he had had any excuse for bringing this matter forward in order to get rid of undue delays, he might have had some case to put up, but simply because there is some need for him or someone else to hurry away for some other purpose, surely the House is not going to be asked to bind itself by a form of resolution which in this case may be comparatively harm less but which as a precedent will perhaps be fraught with very consider able danger. Here you are definitely, by means of a resolution, taking a step which purports to exclude the possibility of discussing questions raised by private Members on Amendments to a Finance Bill. That is a thing which it has never before been suggested is desirable or right. I hope that the House will take a strong line on this, and will tell the
right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to guillotine the discussions later on, because they are taking too long a time, he will then bring forward a resolution in some form which will enable the House to do that if they think it desirable.

Earl WINTERTON: I say with respect that neither of the speakers so far has brought out all the facts about this Resolution. The facts are three fold. In the first place, this is an innovation. There is no question about that, and the bandying of words as to which Government is most to blame does not affect the main point. This is a new form of procedure. We come to the reasons for it. The real justification has not been stated by the Financial Secretary. It is this: All of us who have taken a part in the protectionist movement for years have always, in private conversation, contemplated with apprehension what the effect would be, under the ordinary procedure of the House of Commons, of discussing every single item in a protectionist Budget on the Floor of the House. We know that it would mean weeks and months of discussion. The Government, quite rightly, have taken the matter out of the hands of the House and put it in the hands of the Tariff Commission in order that the Commission may have full powers and, as has been truly stated in the liberal Press, in order that the House of Common may not discuss these various matters item by item. It would have been better if the Financial Secretary, instead of talking about the matter of time, had said that this is not a matter for this Session but for all Sessions, and a permanent Amendment of the law. Let the House face the fact that by this Resolution the effective discussion of various matters is taken out of the power of the House of Commons. It is a constitutional innovation, and that should have been stated frankly to the House. What happened last Session ought not to be any precedent. The Guillotine last Session was a scandal. All Guillotines of Budgets are a scandal, unless they are unavoidable. I hope we shall have no such thing as a Guillotine on this Budget, because it restricts the power of the House of Commons through the agency of private Members, who still
remain an important part of the House of Commons, to move Resolutions. The House will do well to pass the Resolution but let us pass it knowing fully what it entails.

Mr. AMERY: I should like to say a word to endorse what my Noble Friend has said about the great significance of this Resolution. Its immediate object, as I understand it, is to prevent the whole of the Import Duties Act being discussed over again, at a great waste of Parliamentary time, in connection with the Budget. To that extent I sympathise with it. But I would go even further. I think it is very vital, for the effective future conduct both of finance and of our tariff system, that the two things should be quite clearly separated and that the regulation of trade should no longer be looked upon as merely a part of taxation. We want to separate the taxing and the revenue raising functions of Parliament from its functions as concerned with the regulation of trade, and the more the two are kept apart, the less tariffs are regarded as taxation and the more as regulation, the better. What it is going to do, however, is not only to prevent Parliament re-discussing the Import Duties Act on this year's Finance Bill but, except to the extent to which the Advisory Committee makes suggestions in detail which are brought to the House as Resolutions, there will be no opportunity for the rest of this Parliament for our tariff policy to be reviewed and, while I shall certainly support the Resolution, I think the Government should give very careful consideration as to what is to be its policy in subsequent Sessions. Is the question of tariff policy to be entirely re moved from Parliament except in so far as changes are recommended by the Advisory Committee or an entirely new Import Duties Act introduced by the Government, or could the Government devise some means by which once a year the general question of our tariff policy can come under the review of Parliament? It seems to me that that is a point to which the Government ought to give very serious consideration.
I am not prepared at the moment to say how far I should press for such an annual opportunity for the reconsideration of our tariff policy. It may be a good thing for Parliament to leave the matter in the hands of an impartial body
altogether, but it is a tremendous diminution of our responsibilities and, before the Government commits itself to that, it ought to give very full consideration to the matter. It is a little difficult to ask the Financial Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to commit himself here and now to a definite statement as to the course the Government intends to pursue, but at an early stage of our proceedings on the Finance Bill the Government should make up its mind and let the House of Commons know whether it is, in the lifetime of this Parliament, going to have any opportunity of reviewing the general working of our tariff system.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The House must have been astonished at the last two speeches, and Members on the Government Front Bench must be repeating the prayer, "O Lord, save me from my two intimate friends." The gravest constitutional departure is being attempted under cover of what has almost amounted to a lie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I said "what almost amounted to a lie." It has been stated that it is merely an alter native to the guillotine, but, as we have understood the guillotine in the past, it limits the amount of time the House devotes to certain parts of a Measure. It leaves the Opposition and private Members to select the Amendments upon which they desire to concentrate and simply places a time schedule before the House in accordance with which the business is to be done. Its effect, therefore, is quantitative, but the effect of the Resolution now proposed is qualitative. It does not limit the time the House has to devote to the Measure, but determines the form and nature of the opposition, and what can be done. The whole thing can be understood if we get rid entirely of the obligations of the Resolution and the Finance Bill and simply assume that the Government are bringing in an amending Bill. The Government are saying that it would not be competent for the House to amend the amending Bill, and that it must either reject or accept it in its various parts. The position is hidden and complicated, because here are Resolutions to limit the extent of the Finance Bill which is to be founded upon Resolutions. There was no need for this to be done if all that was intended to be done was to limit the Finance Bill to the
Resolutions. The proposal will prevent Amendments being put down to the Amendments of the Import Duties Act, 1932.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No.

Mr. BEVAN: I beg the hon. Gentle man's pardon. The point has been brought out with commendable clarity by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl-Winterton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), that this proceeding is to prevent hon. Members from putting down detailed Amendments to the amending legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It is precisely the point which has been brought out, and the purpose of the Resolution. Perhaps the Noble Lord sees the difficulty into which his extraordinary candour has placed his Front Bench?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member must not attribute to me words which I did not use. That is not what I said, but at this late hour I do not propose to ex plain to the hon. Gentleman what I did say.

Mr. BEVAN: The Noble Lord was as lucid as his impudence is now. He made it clear to the House—and he was rein forced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook—that this is indeed a device of the Protectionists to secure the carrying of Protectionist legislation with the minimum of publicity and difficulty in the House of Commons. The House of Commons ought to be told that fact. Hon. Members have not only been asked to hand over the initiation of taxation to an outside body, but they are asked, when that outside body has made recommendations and the Government have come to a decision upon them, to swallow the recommendations at one gulp or to reject them altogether.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hesitate to intervene at this late hour, and I am sure that the House will be sorry that I do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am obliged for that assurance, because the last thing that I want to do is to embarrass the Government. I think it will be agreed that whenever any infringement was at tempted to be made on the rights of private Members in the last Parliament I always came to the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends who now sit on the Front Bench. This particular instance
is a very serious case, and I congratulate the Opposition on having spotted it, though it is late in the day, because last Thursday I specifically asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the matter. I said then that this proposal was going to limit considerably the Debate on the Import Duties when those duties come up for discussion. I was right in that, because the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation said that the Guillotine would limit Debate more than is proposed by this Resolution. That certainly implies, if words mean anything, that this Resolution does limit Debate. Therefore, my first reading of it was correct. I went on to say:
I understand that after the passage of this Resolution it will be impossible, in future De bates, for a private Member to move, for example, any new Clause which might affect the new tariffs, or for a private Member to move to put anything on the free list.
My right hon. Friend is correct when he says that this particular Resolution was open for two days, but that is only a half truth, for it must be read in conjunction with the Fifth Resolution, which was passed on the first day. Without that Resolution these words are valueless. Therefore, it is correct to say that the really relevant Resolution was passed on the first day, un discussed and unexplained. I also said:
It is one more milestone along the road depriving private Members of their full opportunities of Debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1932; cols. 1714–5, Vol. 264.
Since that Debate I have had an opportunity of consulting various persons who are more learned in these matters, and they all agree with my view. We are making a very great innovation in our procedure, as the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl-Winterton) has said. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is not right that at 11.30 at night, and without any notice, apparently, we should be asked, once and for all, to make this great innovation. Even if we do not pass this Resolution, the other Resolution which has been passed very much restricts the scope of what may be discussed on the Finance Bill as regards the Import Duties Act. I cannot believe that the Finance Bill either in Committee or on Report would be allowed to have so many Clauses that it would seriously incommode the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer in going to Lausanne in June. If hon. Members read the Order Paper on the Finance Bill they will find that generally there are 50 or 100 new Clauses, but very few of them are called. Therefore, I do not think we should lose very much if we did not pass this Resolution.
It may be that the Government must have this Resolution now, but I should prefer that there should be a little more time given, in view of the very strong protests that have been made. At the present time there is a Select Committee sitting on Procedure. If we are going to make a great revolution in procedure, that Committee is the body to deal with the very matters that we are speaking about. It might become part of our procedure, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said that we should have some sort of annual review of the general policy covered by Import Duties, and that we should have a regular review of the financial situation of the country. All these things ought to go before the Select Committee. There fore, I suggest that it might be well for the Government to hold their hand now and not make this great innovation, which will limit Debate on the Finance Bill on very important matters, and that instead it should be specifically referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, the results of whose inquiry we should await with interest.

12.30 a.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It is quite like old times to make some observations in a Budget Debate. I have refrained from doing so hitherto, because the work has been so admirably done by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But on this point I think it is right, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be present, that I should say a few words. We must look at wider issues first, and I would ask the House to remember the tremendous fiscal changes made in this country in the last few months. When we are talking about a new precedent being made let us remember we are in a new world and facing new things. I am not stating that as a justification, but I ask the House to remember it. As you proceed in the rapid
change of the whole fiscal system of the country, you cannot exactly see what difficulties you are to come up against. You have to provide for these difficulties as best you can with the help of the House when the time comes. Let me say one word, first of all, about a subject closely cognate to this, mentioned often during the day and actually during the Debate on this Amendment, namely, the question of the Tariff Committee. That Tariff Committee, about which much has been said to-day from diverse points of view, and sometimes I think from an exaggerated point of view, is the kind of Committee I have always envisaged since I advocated a tariff. I advocated it for my party long before we thought of a National Government, long before we thought the Labour Government were coming to an end, and I advocated it on this ground—one of the main arguments against tariffs on the part of Free Traders has always been the corruption to which tariffs may lead. I am not saying whether that is true or not. They always used to say, and we have heard it many times, that when you have tariff legislation the lobbies of this House will be full of business men, and corruption will be rife and so forth, according to the views of the speaker and the audience. I said that when we came into power we would do all we could to meet what we think may be a real danger in tariff politics. The only way to avoid that danger is to set up a committee of men of the highest character, of men known to be unprejudiced, of men re warded by the State for their services with such remuneration as would put them outside temptation.
That is the theory, and I believe that in this case it has been carried out. I think that is wholly right. That, again, is a new departure, but you have a new condition of things, and the more we can keep the details of tariff work and advice in the hands of such a Committee, and not directly in the hands of the House of Commons the better— because, after all, responsibility arises. The Government are not bound to accept the advice of that Committee. The Government make themselves responsible for whatever they accept or do not accept, and when they make themselves responsible, they have to get the results of their
decision confirmed by this House in the usual way, in the way that the decisions of the Government are confirmed until the day comes when the House turns them out. It is under the process I have de scribed to the House that the Import Duties Bill was framed and the Act was passed.
We saw that it would be perfectly possible, unless limiting words of this kind were put in, to have the whole of the Act ripped to pieces by way of reduction in the House of Commons during the process of the Budget. Is that a good thing or is it not? I say that, quite apart from the fact that an active Opposition might keep the House for months on that work—let us leave that aside—it is a bad thing that you should have the whole details put down on the Floor of the House within a month or two of the process I have described—which I believe to be the best— having been fulfilled literally and correctly. I believe that would foe a bad thing. That is why we have put these words in there. I know it is a precedent. I will say a word about that in a moment. But surely, if I read these words aright, apart from what is contained in the Import Duties Act, there is no liberty that anyone has enjoyed in the passage of previous Finance Bills which is interfered with by as much as a comma by what is included in this Resolution, but it does bring us to another point which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) mentioned, which I think is a good point, and upon which we have been far too busy to come to any conclusion. I may say here that I do not know whether or not this Resolution will be a permanent form. It acts for this year. I would be perfectly willing to have the whole process discussed as mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank). It is perfectly obvious that whether we do that or not the Government will have to decide, and long before next year, whether they will have such a reservation made next year or not.
I come back to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I agree that there would be great advantage if we could devise some method by which there should be some review in this House of the whole tariff situation. I am not
prepared to say to-night, and he did not expect me to say, what form that should take. I do not know. I have not yet considered it, but the request for consideration is an eminently reasonable one, and there must be a desire among all of us in all parts of the House—a desire animated by different motives—to have some opportunity of saying what we feel about the existing legislation, in which way we should like to see it modified, and so forth. I can assure the House with regard to that, as well as with regard to the continuance in future years of such words as we have in the Resolution this year, these matters shall be Very carefully considered by the Government. I thought it right at this stage to make these few observations. We must get this Resolution. We have to get the Report stage completed so that the Finance Bill may be introduced. It is not an extremely long Bill, but, still, it is a rather long Bill with a number of technical Clauses, which will want very careful printing and correcting, and I would not like to run the risk of postponing the printing of the Bill, having regard to the fact that we have to get the Second Reading of it through before we adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess.
I would like to add a little more to what I said in the earlier part of my speech and to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend, who occupies the position which I occupied for nearly five years, on having to undertake so much work without his Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can never forget the kindness shown by Mr. Bonar Law in relying on me to do so much of the work on the Finance Bill in the first two years. My right hon. and gallant Friend may have had his painful moments and may feel justifiably tired, but he has had the satisfaction of learning a great deal in the last few days. He is less likely to give himself away, he has grown in Parliamentary stature, and I congratulate him warmly.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Everyone will agree with the tribute which the Lord President of the Council has paid to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has frequently occurred in our Parliamentary history that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to fall out of the line temporarily and then is the chance
of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Everyone in every part of the House will feel that he has stepped into the breach in the most effective fashion. The great majority of the House will agree with the Lord President of the Council in all that he has said about the importance of keeping the details of tariff arrangements clear and free from the day-to-day work of the House of Commons and administered by an independent and impartial tariff com mission. We are all agreed on that, and the right hon. Gentleman was only forcing an open door in the stress that he put upon that aspect of the topic now under discussion.
What is that topic? The point in question is whether, for the purpose of getting this particular Import Duties Bill through, we may not be permanently limiting and compromising those principles of the House of Commons by which, after all, we have not done so badly, by which in this period of the world's history we have arrived at a position about which we are not concerned, and by which we have a great Conservative majority engaged in carrying through a great Conservative programme. Do not let us, because to-day we hold the power, be in too much of a hurry to sweep away those liberties and principles and even those technicalities of procedure, which perhaps have been the unseen contributory cause of the growth of a structure of political society in this island which has withstood many stresses and many assaults. I was relieved to hear from the Lord President of the Council that he denied the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, "Is it true that for the rest of this Parliament tariff policy is entirely removed from the House of Commons?" As far as I could gather, the Lord President of the Council said no, that nothing we were doing now could affect any future year.

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes. That is with regard to this Resolution on the Paper. I said that, whatever might be done in future years, might have to be most care fully considered in the future. We shall have to consider carefully how to manage a discussion of tariffs in the House of Commons.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Suppose that this Resolution is passed to-night and nothing further is done, no reversing Resolution is passed, then during the entire life of this Parliament there will be no means of discussing this matter?

Major ELLIOT: This is an annual matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then it is quite clear from the answer to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that we are in no danger of parting with any liberties of the House of Commons for more than the currency of the present year. If that is so, I am greatly relieved to hear it. I am obliged to the Lord President of the Council for having made it quite clear. I was also gratified to hear from him that he is prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), namely, that this question of the method by which the Import Duties are placed in an exceptional category of procedure shall be brought under effective review, and that he is prepared to refer that to the Committee on Procedure. Is that so? Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to refer to the Committee on Procedure, our own Committee which is now sitting, the question of how the future discussion of Import Duties is to be conducted? I understood from his speech that he was.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think, speaking from recollection, that what I said was that I was perfectly willing to consider either with them or in consultation with my colleagues in what way this could be done.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then considerable relief will be given to those Members of the House who fear that, for the sake of the convenience this year of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in attending the Lausanne Conference, which I hope will be more successful than some other conferences, and of some other matters which are special to this year, we might be parting with some of the broad general liberties of the House of Commons. We have a definite understanding that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult with the Committee on Procedure and not deny them the opportunity of expressing their opinion on these matters, and that, failing agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee on Procedure, the Government will make some
further positive statement on the matter after they have consulted among them selves. I am therefore of opinion that we should support the Government and not hamper them in getting through this Resolution. I agree with what the Lord President of the Council has said. It is an extraordinary situation. We are carrying through an immense fiscal revolution, and we should not hamper the administration at the present time. Therefore, I wish to support the Government on the definite assurances which have been given.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that the right hon. and hon. Members who were present when my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) raised the point of Order must agree now that he was perfectly justified—that is to say if the right hon. and hon. Gentle men who have spoken are correct in their view. I rise to put it to you, Mr. Speaker—I do so very respectfully—I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will record the fact that you decided there was no innovation. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I shall be quite willing to be corrected. I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to say that the course we were proceeding was the ordinary course, and it was the course that was followed whenever a Financial Resolution was brought before the House. I may not have heard what you said, Mr. Speaker, but certainly what we understood you to say in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is rather mistaken as to what I intended to say, which was, that there was nothing out of order. It was entirely in order. I did not say the effect of it was not an entire innovation —which it is—but that, as regards the Financial Resolution, it was entirely in order in limiting the discussion which takes place on the Bill founded upon it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I listened very care-fully to this discussion, and I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) have all agreed that this was a new pro-
cedure and not the ordinary procedure on Financial Resolutions, and I do not know what the discussion has been about if that was not so. [Interruption.] If this is not a change, then I repeat, there has been no sense in the discussion. The discussion must definitely have been on the point that we have embarked on a new fiscal policy, that we are living in a new world, and consequently that this was the purpose of the Resolution. I am not arguing whether I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker—we must accept your Ruling and judgment on the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: What I said must not be mistaken. I am not saying that an entire innovation is not started by this form of Resolution. All I said was, as regards the effect of it in limiting in the subsequent Bill the discussion, that there was nothing new in that all Budget Resolutions do that.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. As what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lansbury) has said may be taken to controvert your Ruling, I want to say quite clearly that I was not questioning the constitutional aspect; all I said was that it was an innovation.

Mr. LANSBURY: I must be allowed to exercise whatever brain I possess. It is extremely difficult to talk of this, because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are engaged in conversation that is heard all over the place. [Interruption.] I am always willing to be told if I am offending, and I shall be glad to be corrected. I am trying to understand the position, and I did not take part in the discussion until a number of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been here longer than I have, had given their views. We object to this Resolution, because in our view it is an entirely new form of procedure and an innovation, and we have tried to get Mr. Speaker's Ruling as to whether or not it is in order. I certainly understood you, Mr. Speaker, to mean that this procedure was the same as the procedure of an ordinary Financial Resolution. I am perfectly willing to leave it to be judged by what will be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning as to what has been said by the various speakers.
I also wish to say that I think it is rather outrageous that we should have been treated to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Major Elliot) and the reasons he gave us on behalf of the Government as to why this should be done. His reasons were entirely different from the reasons given by the Lord President of the Council. We only got to the root of the matter when the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham spoke, and it is definite now that this position is in order for this first year. Whether it will last longer or not we do not know. We know now that this is a design by this Resolution to take away from the House of Commons any responsibility, after one discussion, for these new tariffs which the Government like to bring forward. The Lord President of the Council has talked about the reason for this. I do not take any stock of the reason. I think he gave his case away when he said that the remuneration was sufficient to keep the Committee above suspicion and temptation. I think that money is a thing that is acting to the detriment of the honour and justice of this business. While I do not think that that is a good safeguard all I want to point out again is that the Government of the day have rejected a Motion which would have set up a Committee— not a Committee of the whole House— but a Committee giving some advice on another question. The fact is that what the Government want is a free hand. I can remember a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in a speech on tariffs when he talked about a free hand and free beer in the pub.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You were a boy then.

Mr. LANSBURY: Occasionally, the right hon. Gentleman speaks really good sense. I notice he changes his mind, but we now know where he is. There was something he said which was perfectly true. It has been proved true in every country where tariffs are in operation. We register a protest against the Government bringing in a proposal of this kind in this sort of way. If they wanted to take tariffs away from this House, the proper thing to have done was to have brought forward a resolution in the ordinary way and to have given proper time for its discussion.
The other thing I want to say is that we know now that when we were told that this proposal was 1.0 a.m. brought forward instead of the Guillotine, in fact, that had nothing whatever to do with the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 29.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[1.1 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pike, Cecil F.


Albery, Irving James
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Potter, John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hanbury, Cecil
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Apsley, Lord
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ray, Sir William


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Blindell, James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Boothby. Robert John Graham
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Boulton, W.W.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ross, Ronald D.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Bracken, Brendan
Jamleson, Douglas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ker, J. Campbell
Salt, Edward W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Kimball, Lawrence
Savery, Samuel Servington


Browne, Captain A. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Scone, Lord


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burghley, Lord
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Edward Tatwell (Bromley)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Lennax-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Levy, Thomas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart. Earl
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Llewellln, Major John J.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Colman, N. C. D.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, John
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Conant, R. J. E.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Storey, Samuel


Cook, Thomas A.
McLean, Major Alan
Strauss, Edward A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Templeton, William P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Donner, P. W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Duggan, Hubert John
Milne, Charles
Train, John


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eastwood, John Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, William Shephard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, Patrick
Wells, Sydney Richard


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
North, Captain Edward T.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Fox, Sir Gifford
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fuller, Captain A. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wise, Alfred R.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Gledhill, Gilbert
Patrick, Colin M.



Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peat, Charles U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goldie, Noel B.
Penny, Sir George
Major George Davies and Corn-


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
mander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Curry, A. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Tinker and Mr. Duncan


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William
Graham.


Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, and from Committees of the whole House on the 26th day of April, and agreed to by the House on that day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain and Major Elliot.

FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, to amend the Law relating to the Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, in certain particulars, and also other enactments relating to the Customs, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [26th April] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Gas Undertakings (Powers of Investment) be now considered." [Sir F. Thomson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
hat a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the interim recommendations, dated the 22nd March, 1932, of the Gas Legislation Committee, appointed by the Board of Trade, and generally the extent to which gas undertakers should be authorised to invest funds in other undertakings, and to report accordingly."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Mr. McKeag, Major McLean, Mr. Nunn, Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, and Mr. Thomas Williams nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order pro posed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Tottenham and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Kidderminster Gas Company, which was presented on the 17th day of March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the Rouse, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after One o'Clock.